initial commit of ebook 44331HEADmain

36 files changed, 16947 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/44331-8.txt b/old/44331-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bd4342e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,5053 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Prehistoric Man
+
+Author: W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+Release Date: December 1, 2013 [EBook #44331]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+             The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature
+
+
+                             PREHISTORIC MAN
+
+
+
+
+                       CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
+                        London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
+                           C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
+
+                             [Illustration]
+
+                     Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET
+              London: H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET, W.C.
+             WILLIAM WESLEY & SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND
+                        Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
+                        Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
+                      New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
+              Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
+
+                          _All rights reserved_
+
+
+                             [Illustration]
+
+
+                             PREHISTORIC MAN
+
+                                   BY
+
+                           W. L. H. DUCKWORTH
+                            M.A., M.D., Sc.D.
+
+                     University Lecturer in Physical
+                         Anthropology, Cambridge
+
+                               Cambridge:
+                         at the University Press
+                                  1912
+
+                          _First Edition_, 1912
+                         _Second Edition_, 1912
+
+
+_With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on the
+title page is a reproduction of one used by the earliest known Cambridge
+printer, John Siberch, 1521_
+
+
+
+
+                                 PREFACE
+
+
+This book deals with the earliest phases in the past history of Mankind:
+the selected period ends at the Aurignacian division of the Palaeolithic
+Age. I regret to be unable to affix definite dates in years to the
+several divisions of time now recognised. To illustrate the difficulty of
+forming conclusions on this subject, it should be noted that in 1904
+Professor Rutot (p. 103) assigned a duration of 139,000 years to the
+Pleistocene period, while in 1909 Dr Sturge claimed 700,000 years for a
+portion only of the same period. Evidently the present tendency is to
+increase enormously the drafts on geological time, and to measure in
+millions the years that have elapsed since the first traces of human
+existence were deposited.
+
+But in the face of estimates which differ so widely, it seemed preferable
+to distinguish subdivisions of time by reference to animal-types or the
+forms of stone-implements, rather than by the lapse of years.
+
+In the attempt to summarise a considerable amount of evidence, I have
+tried to select the facts most relevant to the subject in hand. And where
+an opinion is expressed I have endeavoured to indicate the reasons for
+the decision that is adopted.
+
+Additional evidence is pouring in at the present time, and there is no
+doubt but that the next few years will witness great extensions of
+knowledge. In this connection, I take the opportunity of mentioning the
+discovery made a few weeks ago by M. Henri Martin at La Quina, of a human
+skeleton resembling the Neanderthal type but presenting (it is said)
+definite features of inferiority to that type. Another subject of vast
+importance is Mr Moir's recent demonstration (p. 106) of elaborately
+worked implements resting beneath strata referred to the Pliocene period.
+
+For the loan of blocks, or for permission to reproduce illustrations, my
+cordial thanks are due to the editors and publishers of the journals
+mentioned in the following list. The authors' names are appended to the
+several illustrations.
+
+    Anatomischer Anzeiger,
+    Archiv für Anthropologie,
+    Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia,
+    Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns,
+    Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft,
+    L'Anthropologie,
+    Royal Dublin Society,
+    Royal Society of Edinburgh,
+    Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.
+
+                                                   W. L. H. DUCKWORTH
+
+    _December_ 11, 1911
+
+
+
+
+                                CONTENTS
+
+
+  CHAP.     	                                                     PAGE
+
+    I.  The Precursors of Palaeolithic Man                              1
+
+   II.  Palaeolithic Man                                               17
+
+  III.  Alluvial Deposits and Caves                                    63
+
+   IV.  Associated Animals and Implements                              85
+
+    V.  Human Fossils and Geological Chronology                       112
+
+   VI.  Human Evolution in the light of recent research	              127
+
+       Table A                                        _to face p._ 85
+
+         "   B                                        _to  "   "_ 118
+
+
+
+
+                          LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
+
+
+   FIG.     	                                                     PAGE
+
+     1. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc.
+        (From Dubois)                                                   5
+
+     2. Outline tracings of Jawbones, (A) Mauer (B) ancient Briton     11
+
+     3. Tooth from Taubach: surface of crown. (From Nehring)           22
+
+     4. Tooth of Chimpanzee. (From Nehring)                            22
+
+  5, 6. Tooth from Taubach: inner and outer sides. (From Nehring)      23
+
+     7. Human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner)                       25
+
+     8. Tracings of teeth from Krapina and Mauer. (From Kramberger)    29
+
+     9. Human skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Birkner)        33
+
+    10. Outline tracings of skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints etc.
+        (From Boule)                                                   35
+
+    11. Contours of skulls, (A) New Guinea man (B) European woman      36
+
+    12. Outline tracing of human skull from Le Moustier                40
+
+    13. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer and Le Moustier        41
+
+    14. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer, La Naulette, etc.
+        (From Frizzi)                                                  42
+
+    15. Outline tracings of jawbones, (A) ancient Briton (B) Le
+        Moustier (C) Mauer                                             43
+
+    16. Outline tracings of the Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar) skull.
+        (From Sera)                                                    48
+
+    17. Human skull of the Grimaldi-type. (From Birkner)               51
+
+    18. Outline tracings of skulls from Galley Hill etc. (From
+        Klaatsch)                                                      58
+
+    19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. (From Dubois)         64
+
+    20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. (From Birkner)                     65
+
+    21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. (From Birkner)            69
+
+    22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Boule)       72
+
+    23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Boule)  77
+
+    24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene, and
+        Pleistocene time. (From Penck)                                107
+
+    25. Chart of oscillations of snow-level in the Glacial period.
+        (From Penck)                                                  119
+
+    26. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc.
+        (From Dubois)                                                 129
+
+    27. Position of Palaeolithic Man in the scale of evolution.
+        (From Cross)                                                  131
+
+    28. Thigh-bones arranged to illustrate Klaatsch's theory.         136
+
+    29. The human skeleton found beneath the Boulder-clay at Ipswich.
+        (From a drawing by Dr Keith, reproduced with permission)      153
+
+
+
+
+                                CHAPTER I
+
+                   THE PRECURSORS OF PALAEOLITHIC MAN
+
+
+Our knowledge of prehistoric man is based naturally upon the study of
+certain parts of the human skeleton preserved in a fossil state. In
+addition to these materials, other evidence is available in the form of
+certain products of human industry. These include such objects as
+implements of various kinds, owing their preservation to the almost
+indestructible nature of their material, or again artistic
+representations, whether pictorial or glyptic.
+
+The evidence of the bones themselves will be considered first, partly for
+convenience and partly in view of the cogency possessed by actual remains
+of the human frame. Other branches of the subject will come under review
+afterwards.
+
+Of all the discoveries of ancient remains, whether possibly or certainly
+human, two in particular stand out pre-eminently in marked relief. The
+specimens thus distinguished are known as the remains of _Pithecanthropus
+erectus_, on the one hand, and on the other a jaw-bone which is
+attributed to a human type described (from the locality of the discovery)
+as _Homo heidelbergensis_.
+
+The geological antiquity assigned in each instance is greater than that
+claimed for any bones acknowledged unreservedly to be human.
+
+It is thus clear that a high value attaches to these specimens if they be
+regarded as documents testifying to the course of human evolution. When
+the bones are examined, the contrast they provide with all human remains
+is so marked as to emphasise at once the necessity for a thorough and
+critical examination of their structure.
+
+
+                       _Pithecanthropus erectus._
+
+In the case of these bones, the facts are now so widely known and so
+easily accessible as to render unnecessary any detailed exposition here.
+The discoveries were made in the years 1891 and 1892 by Professor
+Dubois[1], who was engaged at the time on an investigation of the remains
+of various animals found embedded in a river-bank in Java. As is well
+known, the actual remains are scanty. They comprise the upper part of a
+skull, part of a lower jaw (which has never been described), three teeth,
+and a left thigh-bone.
+
+[1] The numbers refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume.
+
+Before entering upon any criticism of the results of Professor Dubois'
+studies, it is convenient to give a general statement of his conclusions.
+Here we find described a creature of Pliocene age, presenting a form so
+extraordinary as hardly to be considered human, placed so it seems
+between the human and simian tribes. It is Caliban, a missing link,--in
+fact a Pithecanthropus.
+
+With the erect attitude and a stature surpassing that of many modern men
+were combined the heavy brows and narrow forehead of a flattened skull,
+containing little more than half the weight of brain possessed by an
+average European. The molar teeth were large with stout and divergent
+roots.
+
+The arguments founded upon the joint consideration of the length of the
+thigh-bone and the capacity of the skull are of the highest interest. For
+the former dimension provides a means of estimating approximately the
+body-weight, while the capacity gives an indication of the brain-weight.
+The body-weight is asserted to have been about 70 kgm. (eleven stone) and
+the brain-weight about 750 gm. And the ratio of the two weights is
+approximately 1/94. The corresponding ratios for a large anthropoid ape
+(Orang-utan) and for man are given in the table following, thus:
+
+                Orang-utan                  1/183
+               _Pithecanthropus erectus_     1/94
+                Man                          1/51
+
+The intermediate position of the Javanese fossil is clearly revealed.
+
+The same sequence is shewn by a series of tracings representative of the
+cranial arc in the middle line of the head (Fig. 1). And the results of
+many tests of this kind, applied not only by Professor Dubois but also
+by Professor Schwalbe, are confirmatory of the 'intermediate' position
+claimed for _Pithecanthropus erectus_. The molar teeth are of inadequate
+size if the skull-cap is that of an ape, whereas they are slightly larger
+than the corresponding teeth furnished by primitive existing human types.
+And now some of the objections to this account may be taken.
+
+In the first place, the claim to Pliocene antiquity is contested. So keen
+an interest was excited by Professor Dubois' discovery that more than one
+expedition has been dispatched to survey and review the ground. It is now
+declared in certain quarters that the horizon is lower Quaternary: I do
+not know that any attempt has been made to reduce the age of the strata
+further. As the matter stands, the difference is not very material, but
+Professor Dubois refuses to accept the revised estimate and still adheres
+to his own determination. Incidentally the more recent work
+(Blanckenhorn[2], 1910) has resulted in the discovery of a tooth claimed
+as definitely human (this is not the case with the teeth of
+_Pithecanthropus erectus_), and yet of an antiquity surpassing that of
+the remains found by Professor Dubois. The latter appears unconvinced as
+to the genuineness of the find, but no doubt the case will be fully
+discussed in publications now in the course of preparation.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 1. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a
+                 common dimension, viz. the line _Gl--Op_, representing a
+                 base-line of the brain-case. _Pe_, Pithecanthropus.
+                 _Papua_, a New Guinea native. _Hl_, _Sm_, _At_ are from
+                 skulls of monkeys. (After Dubois.)]
+
+Professor Dubois assigned the bones to one and the same skeleton, and for
+this he has been severely criticised. Apart from arguments affecting the
+geological age of the specimens, the question of their forming part of a
+single individual is very momentous. For if two skeletons are
+represented, one may be human, while the other is that of an ape. It is
+admitted that the larger bones were separated by a distance of forty-six
+feet. By way of meeting this criticism, it is submitted that the distance
+is by no means so great as to preclude the possibility of the common and
+identical origin of the various bones. Moreover it is at least curious
+that if two skeletons are here represented, no further remains should
+have been detected in the immediate vicinity.
+
+The fact that the thigh-bone might easily have passed as that of a man,
+while the skull-fragment is so divergent from all modern forms as to be
+scarcely human, is of great interest. The contrast between the
+indications provided by the two bones was remarked at once. Some writers,
+rejecting certain other evidence on the point, then drew the inference
+that the human thigh-bone had been evolved and had arrived at the
+distinctive human condition in advance of the skull. The importance of
+this conclusion lies in the fact that the human thigh-bone bears
+indications of an erect attitude, while the form of the skull gives
+guidance as to the size of the brain, and consequently to some extent
+provides a clue to the mental endowment of the individual. Whether the
+erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development was first obtained
+by man has been debated for many years. In this case, the evidence was
+taken to shew that the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means
+of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth the upper limb was
+emancipated entirely from its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation
+followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from their use as organs of
+prehension. Simultaneously the mechanism whereby the head is attached to
+the neck and trunk became profoundly modified. This alteration gave to
+the brain an opportunity of growth and increase previously denied, but
+now seized, with the consequent accession of intellectual activity so
+characteristic of the Hominidae.
+
+The story thus expounded is attractive from several points of view. But
+while possessing the support of the Javan fossil remains, it is not
+confirmed in the embryonic history of Man, for there the growth of the
+brain is by far the most distinctive feature. Nor did those who adopted
+this opinion (in 1896), take into account all the characters of the
+ancient human remains even then available. For the evidence of those
+remains points to an order exactly the reverse of that just stated, and
+it indicates the early acquisition of a large and presumably active
+brain. And now that additions have been lately made to those older
+remains (other than the Javan bones), the same 'reversed' order seems to
+be confirmed. On the whole therefore, the soundest conclusion is that
+following a preliminary increment of brain-material, the erect attitude
+came as a further evolutionary advance.
+
+But to return from this digression to the objections against the
+_Pithecanthropus erectus_, it must now be explained that the very
+contrast between the thigh-bone and the skull-cap in respect of these
+inferences, has been used as an argument against the association of these
+bones as part of one skeleton.
+
+The objection may be met in two ways at least. For instance, the
+thigh-bone may yet possess characters which lessen its resemblance to
+those of recent men, but are not recognised on a superficial inspection.
+Careful investigation of the thigh-bone seems to shew that such indeed
+is the case (indeed the human characters are by some absolutely denied).
+But together with this result comes the discovery that the characters of
+straightness and slenderness in the shaft of the bone from which the
+inference as to the erect attitude was largely drawn, do not give
+trustworthy evidence upon this point. In fact, a human thigh-bone may be
+much less straight and less slender than that of arboreal animals such as
+the Gibbon, the Cebus monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycticebus). The
+famous Eppelsheim femur is straighter than, and as slender as that of
+Pithecanthropus. It was regarded at first as that of a young woman, but
+is now ascribed to an anthropoid ape. And in fact, even if the skull-cap
+and thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus should be retained in association, it
+seems that the title 'erectus' is not fully justified.
+
+Another method of rebutting the objection is based on the suggestion that
+Pithecanthropus is not a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to
+describe an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in palaeontology,
+and it was treated leniently by Huxley. To my mind this position can be
+adopted without materially depreciating the value of the evidence yielded
+by the conjoint remains, provided only that their original association be
+acknowledged. Should this assumption be granted, the claims put forward
+on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem to be justified. On
+the other hand, should the association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be
+rejected, the former has not lost all claim to the same position. For the
+most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe[3] of Strassburg, and the
+further elaboration of these by Professor Berry[4] and Mr Cross[5] of
+Melbourne, support Professor Dubois' view. And though the objections may
+not have been finally disposed of, a review of the literature called
+forth by Professor Dubois' publications will shew a slight margin of
+evidence for, rather than against his view.
+
+
+                    _The Heidelberg or Mauer Jaw_[6].
+
+Professor Dubois' Javanese researches were carried out in the years 1891
+and 1892. Fifteen years separate the discovery of the _Pithecanthropus
+erectus_ from that of the second great find mentioned in the introductory
+paragraph of this chapter. This period was by no means barren in respect
+of other additions to the list of human fossils. But the other results
+(including even the finds at Taubach) are regarded as of subsidiary
+importance, so that their consideration will be deferred for the present.
+In 1907 a lower jaw, known now as the Heidelberg or Mauer jaw, was
+discovered by workmen in the sand-pit of Mauer near Heidelberg.
+
+The Mauer jaw is indeed a most remarkable specimen. The first general
+outcome of an inspection of the photographs or of the excellent casts
+(which may now be seen in many museums) is a profound impression of its
+enormous strength (Figs. 2, 13, and 15_c_). By every part of the specimen
+save one, this impression is confirmed. This massiveness, together with
+the complete absence of any prominence at the chin, would have caused
+great hesitation in regard to the pronouncement of a decision as to the
+probable nature of the fossil. The one paradoxical feature is the
+relatively small size of the teeth. All of these have been preserved,
+though on the left side the crowns of four have been removed by accident
+in the process of clearing away some adherent earth and pebbles. The net
+result shews that the teeth are actually within the range of variation
+provided by human beings of races still extant, though commonly regarded
+as 'primitive,' if not pithecoid (such as the aboriginal race of
+Australia). Yet these teeth are implanted in a jaw of such size and
+strength as render difficult the reference of the specimen to a human
+being.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 2. _A_ outline tracing of a cast of the Mauer
+                 Jawbone. _B_ a similar tracing from an unusually large
+                 jaw of an ancient Briton. (From specimens in the
+                 Cambridge Museum.)]
+
+The most striking features of the Mauer jaw have been mentioned already.
+Before entering upon a further discussion of its probable nature, it will
+be well to note some of the other distinctive characters. Thus the
+portion Fig. 2 (_a_) known technically as the ascending ramus is of great
+size, and particularly wide, surpassing all known human specimens in this
+respect. The upper margin of this part is very slightly excavated, a
+slight depression (_b_) replacing the very definite 'sigmoid' notch found
+in almost all human jaws (though the relative shallowness of this notch
+has been long recognised as distinctive of the lowest human types). The
+difference in vertical height between the uppermost points of the condyle
+(_c_) and the coronoid process (_d_) is therefore unusually small. On
+the other hand, the lower margin of the bone is undulating, so that it
+presents a hollow on each side, as well as one near the middle line in
+front. The two halves of the bone are definitely inclined to one another
+and this convergence is faintly marked in the two rows of teeth behind
+the canines. The latter teeth do not project markedly above the level of
+those adjacent to them. The incisor teeth are remarkably curved in their
+long axes, with a convexity in front. The prominences called 'genial
+tubercles' behind the chin are replaced by a shallow pit or fossa.
+
+In one sense the reception accorded by palaeontologists to the fossil jaw
+of Mauer differs remarkably from most of the comparable instances. That
+difference consists in the comparative absence of controversy excited by
+its discovery. This must not be ascribed to any lack of ardour on the
+part of archaeologists. More probable is it that with the lapse of time,
+the acceptance of an evolutionary interpretation of the origin of man has
+gained a wider circle of adherents, so that the claims of even so
+sensational a specimen as this, are sifted and investigated with a
+judicial calm much more appropriate and certainly more dignified than the
+fierce outbursts occasioned by some of the earlier discoveries.
+
+It remains to institute brief anatomical comparisons between the Mauer
+jaw and those of the highest apes on the one hand, and of the most
+primitive of human beings on the other.
+
+(_a_) Of the three larger anthropoid apes available for comparison, it is
+hard to say which presents the closest similarity. The Gibbons do not
+appear to approach so nearly as these larger forms. Among the latter, no
+small range of individual variations occurs. My own comparisons shew that
+of the material at my disposal the mandible of an Orang-utan comes
+nearest to the Mauer jaw. But other mandibles of the same kind of ape
+(Orang-utan) are very different. The chief difficulty in assigning the
+possessor of the Mauer jaw to a pithecoid stock has been mentioned
+already. It consists in the inadequate size of the teeth. In addition to
+this, other evidence comes from the results of an examination of the
+grinding surfaces (crowns) of the molar teeth. These resemble teeth of
+the more primitive human types rather than those of apes. Finally the
+convergence of the two rows when traced towards the canine or eye-tooth
+of each side, points in the same direction.
+
+(_b_) If the apes be thus rejected, the next question is, Would the Mauer
+jaw be appropriate to such a cranium as that of Pithecanthropus? I
+believe an affirmative answer is justifiable. It is true that an
+excellent authority (Keith[7]) hesitates on the ground that the mandible
+seems too massive for the skull, though the same writer recognises that,
+in regard to the teeth, the comparison is apt. This is a difficult point.
+For instance the _H. moust. hauseri_ (cf. Chapter II) has a mandible
+which is far 'lower' than the capacity of the brain-case would lead one
+to expect. Therefore it seems that the degree of correlation between
+mandible and capacity is small, and to predict the size of the brain from
+evidence given by the jaw is not always safe. It is to be remembered that
+special stress was laid by Professor Dubois (cf. p. 4) on the fact that
+the teeth of Pithecanthropus when compared with the skull-cap are
+inadequately small, if judged by the ape-standard of proportion. The
+characters of the teeth, in so far as upper and lower molars can be
+compared, present no obstacle to such an association, and in fact provide
+some additional evidence in its favour. The crucial point seems therefore
+to be the massiveness of the jaw. With regard to this, the following
+remarks may be made. First, that the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus is on
+all sides admitted to shew provision for powerful jaw-muscles. And
+further, in respect of actual measurements, the comparison of the
+transverse width of the Javanese skull-cap with that of the Mauer jaw is
+instructive. For the skull-cap measures 130 mm. in extreme width, the jaw
+130 mm. The association of the two does not, in my opinion, make an
+extravagant demand on the variability in size of either part. A curious
+comparison may be instituted between the Mauer jaw and the corresponding
+bone as represented by Professor Manouvrier (cf. Dubois[8], 1896) in an
+attempted reconstruction of the whole skull of Pithecanthropus. Professor
+Manouvrier's forecast of the jaw differs from the Mauer specimen chiefly
+in regard to the size of the teeth, and the stoutness of the ascending
+ramus. The teeth are larger and the ascending ramus is more slender in
+the reconstruction than in the Mauer specimen.
+
+(_c_) Passing from the consideration of Pithecanthropus to that of human
+beings, the general results of the comparisons that can be made will shew
+that the gap separating the jaw of Mauer from all modern human
+representatives is filled by human jaws of great prehistoric antiquity.
+
+The progress of an evolutionary development is accordingly
+well-illustrated by these specimens. And although _Homo heidelbergensis_
+is seen to be separated from his modern successors by great differences
+in form as well as a vast lapse of time, still the intervening period
+does provide intermediate forms to bridge the gulf. Not the least
+interesting of many reflections conjured up by the Mauer jaw, is that
+this extraordinary form should be met with in a latitude so far north of
+that corresponding to the Javanese discoveries. This difference, together
+with that of longitude, suggests an immense range of distribution of
+these ancestral types. Some of their successors are considered in the
+next chapter.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER II
+
+                            PALAEOLITHIC MAN
+
+
+The fossil remains described in the preceding chapter possess good claims
+to that most interesting position, viz. an intermediate one between
+Mankind and the more highly-developed of the Apes.
+
+From such remarkable claimants we turn to consider fossil bones of
+undoubted human nature. Of such examples some have been regarded as
+differing from all other human types to such an extent as to justify
+their segregation in a distinct species or even genus. Yet even were such
+separation fully justified, they are still indubitably human.
+
+In the early phases of the study of prehistoric archaeology, the
+distinction of a 'stone age' from those of metals was soon realised.
+Credit is due to the present Lord Avebury[9] for the subdivision of that
+period into the earlier and later parts known as the Palaeolithic and
+Neolithic stages. At first, those subdivisions possessed no connotation
+of anatomical or ethnical significance. But as research progressed, the
+existence of a representative human type specially characteristic of the
+palaeolithic period passed from the stage of surmise to that of
+certainty. Yet, although characteristic, this type is not the only one
+recognisable in those early days.
+
+In the following pages, some account is given of the most recent
+discoveries of human remains to which Palaeolithic antiquity can
+undoubtedly be assigned. The very numerous works relating to prehistoric
+man are full of discussions of such specimens as those found in the
+Neanderthal, at Spy, Engis, Malarnaud, La Naulette or Denise.
+
+That some of these examples are of great antiquity is inferred from the
+circumstances under which they were discovered. The evidence relates
+either to their association with extinct animals such as the Mammoth, or
+again the bones may have been found at great depths from the surface, in
+strata judged to have been undisturbed since the remains were deposited.
+One of the earliest discoveries was that of the Engis skull; the
+differences separating this skull from those of modern Europeans are so
+extraordinarily slight that doubt has been expressed as to the antiquity
+assigned to the specimen, and indeed this doubt has not been finally
+dispelled. The bones from Denise (now rehabilitated in respect of their
+antiquity by Professor Boule) present similar features. But on the other
+hand the jaws found at La Naulette and Malarnaud suggest the former
+existence of a lowlier and more bestial form of humanity. Support is
+provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but in regard to the
+latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct from presumption) is
+unfortunately lacking. Further confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry
+skull from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that of the
+Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk and Sir William Turner[10] as
+long ago as 1864, the specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in
+that of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the geological or
+archaeological horizon is lamentably defective. After a lapse of some
+twenty years, the discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium,
+undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of Mammoth, threw a
+flood of light on the subject, and enormously enhanced the significance
+of the earlier discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a human
+type, different from all other known inhabitants of that continent, and
+presenting no small resemblance to the lowliest modern representatives of
+mankind, may be said to have been finally established by the results of
+the excavations at Spy. Moreover the differences thus recognised are such
+as to lend strong support to the evolutionary view as to the origin of
+the more recent human stocks from an ancestral series including
+representatives of a simian phase. Yet the co-existence of a higher type
+represented by the Engis skull must not be overlooked, nor indeed has
+this been the case. The significance of so remarkable a phenomenon is
+more fully discussed in the sequel; but no detailed account of the
+earlier discoveries need be given. A bibliography is appended and here
+references (H[oe]rnes[44], 1908; Schwalbe[55]) will be found to the more
+important sources of information upon those specimens.
+
+  _Locality_      |  _Date_   | _Literary reference_ | _Synonyms_
+                  |           |                      |
+  Taubach         |   1895    | Nehring[11]          |
+  Krapina         |   1899    | Kramberger[12]       |
+  S. Brélade      | 1910-11   | Marett[13]           |
+  La Chapelle aux |   1908    | Boule[14]            | "Corrèze"
+  Saints          |           |                      |
+  Le Moustier     |   1908    | Klaatsch[15]         | "Homo mousterensis
+                  |           |                      |   hauseri"
+  La Ferrassie    |   1909    | Peyrony[16]          |
+  Pech de l'Aze   |   1909    | Peyrony[16]          |
+  Forbes Quarry   | 1848-1909 | Sollas[17] Sera[18]  | "Gibraltar"
+  Andalusia       |   1910    | Verner[19]           |
+  Grotte des      |  1902-06  | Verneau[20]          | "Grimaldi"
+  Enfants         |           |                      |
+  Baradero        |   1887    | (S. Roth) Lehmann-   |
+                  |           |   Nitsche (1907)[21] |
+  Monte Hermoso   |     ?     | Lehmann-Nitsche      | "Homo neogaeus"
+                  |           |   (1909)[22]         |
+  Combe Capelle   |   1909    | Klaatsch[23]         | "Homo aurignacensis
+                  |           |                      |   hauseri"
+  Galley Hill     |   1895    | Newton[24]           | "Homo fossilis"
+
+In the present instance, an attempt will be made to provide some account
+of the most recent advances gained through the results of excavations
+carried out in late years. And herein, prominence will be given in the
+first place to such human remains as are assignable to the lowlier human
+type represented previously by the Spy skeletons. Following upon these,
+come examples possessing other characters and therefore not referable to
+the same type.
+
+The discoveries are commonly designated by the name of the locality in
+which they were made. Those selected for particular mention are
+enumerated in the list on p. 20.
+
+
+                        _Taubach in Saxe-Weimar._
+
+Certain specimens discovered at Taubach and first described in 1895
+possess an importance second only to that of the Mauer jaw and of the
+Javan bones found by Professor Dubois. Indeed there would be
+justification for associating the three localities in the present series
+of descriptions. But upon consideration, it was decided to bring the
+Taubach finds into the present place and group. It may be added that they
+are assigned to an epoch not very different from that represented by the
+Mauer strata whence the mandible was obtained.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 3. The grinding surface of the first right lower
+                 molar tooth from Taubach. The letters denote several
+                 small prominences called cusps.]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 4. The grinding surface of the corresponding tooth
+                 (cf. Fig. 3) of a Chimpanzee. (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are
+                 much enlarged.)]
+
+The actual material consists only of two human teeth of the molar series.
+One is the first lower 'milk' molar of the left side. This tooth exceeds
+most corresponding modern examples in its dimensions. In a large
+collection of modern teeth from Berlin no example provided dimensions so
+large. The surface is more worn than is usual in modern milk teeth of
+this kind. The second tooth (Fig. 3) is the first lower 'permanent' molar
+of the left side. It bears five cusps. Neither this number of cusps, nor
+its absolute dimensions, confer distinction upon the tooth. Its chief
+claim to notice is based upon its relative narrowness from side to side.
+That narrowness (proportion of transverse to anteroposterior diameter),
+represented by the ratio 84.6:100, is present in a distinctly unusual and
+almost simian degree. In this character the Taubach tooth resembles the
+same tooth of the Chimpanzee (Fig. 4), to which it stands nearer than
+does the corresponding tooth of the Mauer jaw. The manner in which the
+worn surface of the tooth slopes downwards and forwards has been claimed
+as another simian character. In these respects, the Taubach tooth is
+among the most ape-like of human teeth (whether prehistoric or recent) as
+yet recorded, and in my opinion there is some difficulty in deciding
+whether this is the tooth of a human being or of a pithecoid human
+precursor. There is a very slight tendency (Figs. 5, 6) to concrescence
+of the roots, and these are curiously parallel in direction, when viewed
+from the side. In the latter respect no similarity to the teeth of apes
+can be recognised.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 5. Inner side of the Taubach tooth.]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 6. Outer side of the same. (From Nehring.)]
+
+
+                          _Krapina in Croatia._
+
+Next in order to the discovery of human teeth at Taubach, the results of
+excavations in a so-called 'rock-shelter' on the bank of the river
+Krapini[vc]a in Croatia, call for consideration. Immense numbers of bones
+were obtained, and the remains of a large number of human beings were
+found to be mingled with those of various animals. Apart from their
+abundance, the fragmentary character of the human bones is very
+remarkable. The discovery that one particular stratum in the cave
+consisted mainly of burnt human bones has suggested that some of the
+early inhabitants of the Krapina shelter practised cannibalism.
+
+Indeed this view is definitely adopted by Professor Kramberger, and he
+makes the suggestion that the remains include representatives of those
+who practised as well as those who suffered from this custom. Both young
+individuals and those of mature age are represented, but very aged
+persons have not been recognised.
+
+Turning to the details of the actual bones, the conclusion of outstanding
+interest is the recognition of further instances of the type of the
+Neanderthal and of Spy, the latter discovery being separated by a lapse
+of twenty years and more from that at Krapina. An attempt has been made
+to reconstruct one skull, and the result is shewn in Fig. 7, which
+provides a view of the specimen in profile. Viewed from above, the chief
+character is the width of the cranial portion, which exceeds very
+distinctly in this respect the corresponding diameter in the more classic
+examples from the Neanderthal and Spy. It is very important to note that
+the brain-case is thus shewn to be remarkably capacious, and this is all
+the more remarkable since the limb-bones do not denote a very great
+stature or bulk.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 7. Profile view of a reconstructed human skull from
+                 Krapina. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)]
+
+Having recently examined the specimens now in the Museum of Palaeontology
+at Agram in Croatia, I venture to add some notes made on that occasion.
+The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a femur are certainly most
+impressive. It is shewn that early palaeolithic man presents examples of
+skulls both of brachy-cephalic and dolicho-cephalic proportions.
+Variations in the form and arrangement of the facial bones also occur.
+
+The form and proportions of the brain-case have been noted already. The
+profile view (cf. Fig. 7) shews the distinctive features of the brow
+region. The brow-ridges are very large, but they do not absolutely
+conform to the conditions presented by the corresponding parts in the
+skulls of aboriginal Australian or Tasmanian natives. The region of the
+forehead above the brows is in some instances (but not in all) flattened
+or retreating, and this feature is indicated even in some small fragments
+by the oblique direction of the lamina cribrosa of the ethmoid bone.
+
+Two types of upper jaw are distinguishable: no specimen projects forwards
+so far as might be expected, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards
+(as in some crania of aboriginal Australians). The facial surface of the
+jaw is not depressed to form a 'canine fossa.' The nasal bones are
+flattened.
+
+The mandibles present further remarkable characters. By these again, two
+types have been rendered capable of distinction. In their massiveness
+they are unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In absolute width
+one specimen actually surpasses the Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival
+that bone in respect of the great width found to characterise the
+ascending ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the chin is absent
+or at best feebly developed. In one specimen the body of the jaw is bent
+at an angle between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is thus
+reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the incisor teeth the conformation
+is peculiar, again suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer jaw,
+and differing from that found in more recent human specimens.
+
+The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made in the following
+manner. The bone was placed on a flat surface. The vertical height of the
+tooth-bearing part was measured in two regions, (_a_) near the front,
+(_b_) further back, and close to the second molar tooth (cf. Fig. 2_f_,
+_g_). In some of the bones these measurements are nearly equal, but the
+hinder one is always the less. In the instances in which the two
+measurements approximate to one another, the proportion is as 100:92. In
+other instances the corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being
+about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered by Professor
+Kramberger to indicate a special variety (krapinensis) of the Neanderthal
+or _Homo primigenius_ type. The second type is that of the Spy mandible
+No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects to the distinction, urging
+that the indices (92 and 86) are not sufficiently contrasted. However
+this may be, it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences. Thus
+the curvature of the forehead is a variable feature, some skulls having
+had foreheads much flatter and more retreating than others. The limb
+bones are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of the arm-bones and
+thigh-bones are longer and more slender than others.
+
+How far these differences really penetrated and whether the thesis of two
+types can be fully sustained, does not appear to admit of a final answer.
+The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the distinction will be
+confirmed. But nevertheless I am far from supporting in all respects the
+view of Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe the suggestion of
+realistic tableaux depicting the murderous conflict of the two tribes at
+Krapina, the butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene of
+cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either variety or type found at
+Krapina can be reasonably identified with that of the Galley Hill
+skeleton. But of these matters further discussion is reserved for the
+sequel.
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 8. Tracings (from skiagrams) of various molar
+                 teeth. The specimen _K.o._ from Krapina shews the
+                 conjoined roots characteristic of teeth found at Krapina,
+                 and in Jersey at S. Brélade's Bay. The large pulp-cavity
+                 of the Krapina teeth should be noted. _K.o._, _K.C._,
+                 _K.E._, _K.G._, from Krapina; _H._ Mauer. (From
+                 Kramberger.)]
+
+This brief sketch of the cranial characters of the Krapina remains must
+be supplemented by a note on the teeth. Great numbers were found, and
+some of them are of enormous dimensions, surpassing those of the Mauer
+jaw. But some of the molar teeth are further distinguished in a very
+remarkable way, for the roots supporting the crown of the tooth are
+conjoined or fused: they are not distinct or divergent as is usual. The
+contrast thus provided by these anomalous teeth is well illustrated in
+the accompanying figure (8, _Ko_). Now such fusion of roots is not
+absolutely unknown at the present day; but the third molar or wisdom
+tooth is most frequently affected. The occurrence is extremely unusual in
+the other molar teeth of modern men. Yet among the Krapina teeth, such
+fusion is striking both in its degree and in its frequency. So marked a
+characteristic has attracted much attention. Professor Kramberger holds
+the view that it constituted a feature of adaptation peculiar to the
+Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this, Professor Adloff
+holds that the character is so definite and marked as to enter into the
+category of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion of
+these views was carried on somewhat warmly, but yet to some extent
+fruitlessly so long as the only known examples were those from Krapina.
+Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on the other side may be
+ranged the support of Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very
+substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor Adloff and his
+supporters. For in a cave near S. Brélade's Bay in Jersey, the
+explorations of Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have brought
+to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very similar form. They are said
+indeed by Dr Keith to be precisely comparable to those from Krapina. The
+conjoined roots of such teeth should be regarded therefore as more than a
+peculiarity of the Palaeolithic men of Croatia, and rather as a very
+definite means of assigning to a particular Palaeolithic epoch any other
+instances of a similar nature. Space will not admit of more than a
+simple record of two other features of the Krapina teeth. They are (_a_)
+the curvature of the canine teeth and (_b_) the remarkable size and
+extent of the 'pulp-cavity' (cf. Fig. 8, _Ko_) of the molar teeth. In
+entering upon so protracted a discussion of this part of the evidence,
+the excuse is proffered that, as may be noted in the instances at Trinil
+and Taubach, teeth are remarkably well-fitted for preservation in the
+fossil state, since they may be preserved in circumstances leading to the
+complete destruction of other parts of the skeleton.
+
+The limb bones of the Krapina skeletons are chiefly remarkable for the
+variety they present. Some are short and stout, of almost pygmy
+proportions: others are long and slender, inappropriate in these respects
+to the massive skull fragments which predominate. The distinction of two
+human types upon evidence furnished by the limb bones has already been
+mentioned.
+
+
+                       _S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey._
+
+A cave in this locality has been explored during the last two years
+(1910, 1911). Human remains are represented by the teeth already
+mentioned on account of their resemblance to those found at Krapina. The
+resemblance depends primarily upon the curious fusion of the roots in the
+molar teeth. Moreover, the circumference of the combined and thickened
+roots is so great as to confer a most remarkable 'columnar' appearance
+on the affected teeth (cf. fig. 8, _K.o._). The teeth from Krapina and
+Jersey while thus associated must be contrasted with some specimens which
+they resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth in the Mauer jaw
+have been described as similar to those from Krapina, but I cannot
+confirm this from Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (_H_)
+is a fair representation. The teeth of the Forbes Quarry and Le Moustier
+specimens do not conform to the precise requirements of the test. The Spy
+teeth are said to have three distinct roots save in two cases, where the
+numbers are four and two respectively. The test of combined molar roots
+therefore provides a means of subdividing a group of examples otherwise
+similar, rather than a mark of recognition applicable to all alike.
+
+The S. Brélade teeth also resemble those from Krapina in the proportions
+of their crowns and the unusually large size of the pulp-cavity. The
+latter character may prove more important than the fusion of the roots.
+But the evidence of their surroundings assigns the teeth from Jersey to
+an epoch less ancient than that of the Krapina men.
+
+
+                   _La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze)._
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 9. Profile view of the skull from La
+                 Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze). (From Birkner,
+                 after Boule.)]
+
+The human skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints holds a very distinguished
+position among its congeners. In the first place, the discovery was not
+haphazard, but made by two very competent observers during their
+excavations. Again, the remains comprise not only the nearly intact
+brain-case, but much of the facial part of the skull, together with the
+lower jaw and many bones of the trunk and limbs. The individual was a
+male of mature age, but not senile (Manouvrier). For these reasons, the
+value of this skeleton in evidence is singularly great.
+
+Speaking generally, the specimen is found to resemble very closely the
+Neanderthal skeleton in practically every structure and feature common to
+the two individuals. This correspondence is confirmatory therefore of the
+view which assigns great antiquity to the Neanderthal man, and in
+addition to this, further support is given to the recognition of these
+examples (together with those from Spy and Krapina) as representatives of
+a widely distributed type. It is increasingly difficult to claim them as
+individual variations which have been preserved fortuitously.
+
+Beyond these inferences, the skeleton from La Chapelle adds very greatly
+to the sum total of our knowledge of the structural details of these
+skeletons. For here the facial bones are well preserved. Before
+proceeding to their consideration reference should be made to the side
+view of the skull (Fig. 9), as well as to the tracings of the brain-case
+brought into comparison with those provided by the Neanderthal and Spy
+crania. In the case of one illustration of those tracings (Fig. 10) it
+must be remarked that objection is taken by Professor Klaatsch to the
+base-line selected, though in this particular instance, that objection
+has less weight than in others.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 10. Outline tracings (cf. Fig. 1) of various human
+                 skulls of the Palaeolithic Age. (From Boule.)]
+
+Turning to the facial parts of the skull, the brows will be seen to
+overhang the face less than in many crania of aboriginal Australians.
+Prognathism, _i.e._ projection of the jaws (Fig. 11), though distinct, is
+less pronounced than might be expected. Hereby the reconstruction of the
+facial parts of the Neanderthal skull, as prepared by Professor Klaatsch,
+is shewn to be much exaggerated. The skeleton of the nose reveals some
+simian traits, and on either side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is
+shallow or non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on this
+character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet it is quite uncommon in
+this degree among modern European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida
+Ruggeri to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The
+reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large and in the incisor
+region (_i.e._ in front) are much curved downwards in the direction of
+their length. But this, though probably correct, is yet a matter of
+inference, for only a couple of teeth (the second premolars of the left
+side) were found _in situ_. And so far no detailed description of these
+teeth has appeared. The mandible is of extraordinary dimensions; very
+widely separated 'ascending rami' converge to the massive body of the
+jaw. The sigmoid notch is almost as shallow as in the Mauer jaw. The chin
+is retreating or absent.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 11. Contours of two skulls, _A_ of a New Guinea
+                 man; _B_ of an European woman. The angle _B.PR.P_
+                 measures the degree of prognathism, and in this respect,
+                 the two specimens are strongly contrasted. (From
+                 specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)]
+
+Such are the more easily recognisable features of the skull. It will be
+understood that many more details remain for discussion. But within the
+allotted space, two only can be dealt with. The capacity of the
+brain-case is surprisingly large, for it is estimated at 1600 cubic
+centimetres: from this figure (which will be the subject of further
+discussion in the sequel) it appears that the man of La Chapelle was
+amply provided with cerebral material for all ordinary needs as judged
+even by modern standards. In the second place, MM. Boule and Anthony, not
+content with a mere estimate of capacity, have published an elaborate
+account of the form of the brain as revealed by a cast of the interior
+of the brain-case. As the main result of their investigations, they are
+enabled to record a list of characters indicative of a comparatively
+lowly status as regards the form of the brain, although in actual size it
+leaves little to be desired.
+
+The principal points of interest in the remainder of the skeleton refer
+in the first instance to the estimate of stature and the evidence
+provided as to the natural pose and attitude of the individual. Using
+Professor Pearson's table, I estimate the stature as being from 1600 to
+1620 mm. (5ft. 3in. or 5ft. 4in.), a result almost identical with the
+estimate given for the Neanderthal man. In both, the limb bones are
+relatively thick and massive, and by the curvature of the thigh-bones and
+of the upper parts of the shin-bones, a suggestion is given of the
+peculiar gait described by Professor Manouvrier as 'la marche en
+flexion'; the distinctive feature consists in an incompleteness of the
+straightening of the knee-joint as the limb is swung forwards between
+successive steps.
+
+The bones of the foot are not lacking in interest, and, in particular,
+that called astragalus is provided with an unusually extensive
+joint-surface on its outer aspect. In this respect it becomes liable to
+comparison with the corresponding bone in the feet of climbing animals,
+whether simian or other.
+
+That these features of the bone in question are not peculiar to the
+skeleton from La Chapelle, is shewn by their occurrence in bones of
+corresponding antiquity from La Quina (Martin, 1911) and (it is also
+said) from La Ferrassie (Boule, L'Anthropologie, Mai-Juin, 1911).
+
+
+                _Homo mousterensis hauseri_ (_Dordogne_)
+
+This skeleton was discovered in the lower rock-shelter of Le Moustier
+(Dordogne, France) in the course of excavations carried out by Professor
+Hauser (of Swiss nationality) during the year 1908. The final removal of
+the bones was conducted in the presence of a number of German
+archaeologists expressly invited to attend. The omission to inform or
+invite any French archaeologists, and the immediate removal of the bones
+to Breslau, are regrettable incidents which cast a shadow quite
+unnecessarily on an event of great archaeological interest. By a curious
+coincidence this took place a few days after the discovery of the human
+skeleton of La Chapelle (_v. supra_). The two finds are very fortunately
+complementary to each other in several respects, for the Dordogne
+skeleton is that of a youth, whereas the individual of La Chapelle was
+fully mature. In their main characters, the two skeletons are very
+similar, so that in the present account it will be necessary only to
+mention the more important features revealed by the study of the Dordogne
+specimen. Outline drawings of the two skulls are compared with the
+corresponding contour of the Neanderthal calvaria by Klaatsch.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 12. Outline tracing of a cast of the Moustier skull
+                 (Dordogne). (From a specimen in the Cambridge Museum.)]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 13. Tracings from casts (in the Cambridge Museum)
+                 of the jaw-bone from Mauer and of that of the Moustier
+                 skeleton. The Mauer jaw is indicated by the continuous
+                 line.]
+
+In the Dordogne youth the bones were far more fragile than in the older
+man from La Chapelle. Nevertheless, photographs taken while the bones
+were still _in situ_ but uncovered, provide a means of realising many
+features of interest. Moreover although the face in particular was
+greatly damaged, yet the teeth are perfectly preserved, and were replaced
+in the reconstructed skull of which a representation is shewn in Fig. 12.
+This reconstruction cannot however be described as a happy result of the
+great labour bestowed upon it. In particular it is almost certain that
+the skull is now more prognathous than in its natural state. Apart from
+such drawbacks the value of the specimen is very great, and this is
+especially the case in regard to the teeth and the lower jaw. The former
+are remarkably large, and they agree herein with the teeth from Krapina
+(though their roots are distinct and not conjoined as in the Krapina
+examples). In respect of size, the teeth of the Dordogne individual
+surpass those of the Mauer jaw, but the first lower molar has proportions
+similar to the corresponding tooth of that specimen. But, large as they
+are, the lower teeth are implanted in a mandible falling far short of the
+Mauer jaw in respect of size and weight (Fig. 13). In fact one of the
+great characteristics of the Dordogne skeleton is the inadequacy of the
+mandible when compared to the remainder of the skull, even though
+allowance is made for the youth of the individual. Were it not that the
+facts are beyond dispute, it is difficult to imagine that such a mandible
+could be associated with so large and capacious a cranium. And yet the
+jaw is not devoid of points in which it resembles the Mauer bone, in
+spite of its much smaller bulk. Thus the chin is defective, the lower
+border undulating, and the ascending branch is wide in proportion to its
+height. A good idea of these features is provided by the illustration of
+the side-view (cf. Fig. 14) given by Professor Frizzi. Seen from above,
+the contour is in close agreement with that of several well-known
+examples, such as the jaws from Spy (cf. Fig. 15) and Krapina.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 14. Outline tracings of jaw-bones. In the lower
+                 row, sections are represented as made vertically in the
+                 median plane through the chin, which is either receding
+                 or prominent. In this series, the numbers refer to those
+                 given in the upper set. (From Frizzi.)]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 15. Outline tracings of jaw-bones viewed from above.
+                 _A_ an ancient Briton (cf. Fig. 2, _B_). _B_ Moustier.
+                 _C_ Mauer. (_B_ and _C_ are from casts in the Cambridge
+                 Museum.)]
+
+The limb bones agree in general appearance with those of the skeletons of
+the Neanderthal and La Chapelle. Though absolutely smaller than in those
+examples, they are yet similar in regard to their stoutness. The femur is
+short and curved, and the articular ends are disproportionately large as
+judged by modern standards. The tibia is prismatic, resembling herein the
+corresponding bone in the Spy skeleton. It is not flattened or
+sabre-like, as in certain other prehistoric skeletons.
+
+Another point of interest derived from the study of the limb bones is the
+stature they indicate. Having regard to all the bones available, a mean
+value of about 1500 mm. (about 4 ft. 11 in.) is thus inferred. Yet the
+youth was certainly 16 years of age and might have been as much as 19
+years. The comparison of stature with that of the other examples
+described is given in a later chapter. At present, it is important to
+remark that in view of this determination (of 4 ft. 11 in.) and even when
+allowance is made for further growth in stature the large size of the
+skull must be regarded as very extraordinary indeed. A similar remark
+applies to the estimate of the capacity of the brain-case. A moderate
+estimate gives 1600 c.c. as the capacity of the brain-case (practically
+identical with that of the La Chapelle skull). In modern Europeans of
+about 5 ft. 6 in., this high figure would not cause surprise. In a modern
+European of the same stature as the Dordogne man (4 ft. 11 in.), so
+capacious a brain-case would be regarded if not as a pathological
+anomaly, yet certainly as the extreme upper limit of normal variation.
+Without insisting further on this paradoxical result (which is partly due
+to defective observations), it will suffice to remark that early
+Palaeolithic man was furnished with a very adequate quantity of
+brain-material, whatever its quality may have been. In regard to the
+amount, no symptom or sign of an inferior evolutionary status can be
+detected.
+
+
+                  _La Ferrassie_ (_Dordogne, France_).
+
+This discovery was made in a rock-shelter during its excavation in the
+autumn of 1909 by M. Peyrony. A human skeleton was found in the floor of
+the grotto, and below strata characterised by Mousterian implements. The
+bones were excessively fragile, and though the greatest care was taken in
+their removal, the skull on arrival at Paris was in a condition described
+by Professor Boule (L'Anthropologie, 1911, p. 118) as 'très brisée.' No
+detailed account has yet appeared, though even in its fragmentary
+condition, the specimen is sure to provide valuable information. From the
+photographs taken while the skeleton lay _in situ_ after its exposure, it
+is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion as to its characters. But
+in regard to these, some resemblance at least (in the jaws) to the
+Neanderthal type can be detected.
+
+M. Peyrony found also in the same year and in the same region (at Le Pech
+de l'Aze) the cranium of a child, assignable to the same epoch as the
+skeleton of La Ferrassie. But so far no further details have been
+published.
+
+
+                     _Forbes Quarry_ (_Gibraltar_).
+
+The human skull thus designated was found in the year 1848. It was, so to
+speak, rediscovered by Messrs Busk and Falconer. The former authority
+described the specimen in 1864, but this description is only known from
+an abstract in the Reports of the British Association. Broca published an
+account of the osteological characters a few years later. After 1882, the
+skull again fell into obscurity for some twenty years: thereafter it
+attracted the attention of Dr Macnamara, Professor Schwalbe, and above
+all of Professor Sollas, who published the first detailed and critical
+account in 1907. This has stimulated yet other researches, particularly
+those of Professor Sera (of Florence) in 1909, and the literature thus
+growing up bids fair to rival that of the Neanderthal skeleton. A most
+important feature of the specimen consists in the fact that the bones of
+the face have remained intact and in connection with the skull. But the
+mandible is wanting, and the molar teeth of the upper set are absent.
+
+As may be gathered from the tracing published by Dr Sera (cf. Fig. 16)
+the upper part of the brain-case is imperfect. Nevertheless the contour
+has been restored, and the Neanderthal-like features of distinct
+brow-ridges, followed by a low flattened cranial curve, are recognisable
+at once. The facial profile is almost complete, and in this respect the
+Forbes Quarry skull stood alone until the discovery of the specimen from
+La Chapelle. Since that incident, this distinction is not absolute, but
+the Forbes Quarry skull is still unique amidst the other fossils in
+respect of the bones forming what is called the cranial base. In no
+other specimen hitherto found, are these bones so complete, or so well
+preserved in their natural position.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 16. Outline tracing and sectional view of the
+                 Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. The various angles are
+                 used for comparative purposes. (From Sera.)]
+
+The Forbes Quarry skull is clearly of Neanderthaloid type as regards the
+formation of the brain-case; in respect of the face it resembles in
+general the skull from La Chapelle. But in respect of the estimated
+capacity of the brain-case (estimated at 1100 c.c.), the Forbes Quarry
+skull falls far short of both those other examples. Moreover the cranial
+base assigns to it an extremely lowly position. The individual is
+supposed by some to have been of the female sex, but there is no great
+certainty about this surmise. The enormous size of the eye-cavities and
+of the opening of the nose confer a very peculiar appearance upon the
+face, and are best seen in the full-face view. Some other features of the
+skull will be considered in the concluding chapter, when its relation to
+skulls of the Neanderthal type will be discussed in detail.
+
+
+                           _Andalusia, Spain._
+
+In 1910, Colonel Willoughby Verner discovered several fragments of a
+human skeleton in a cave in the Serranía de Ronda. These fragments have
+been presented to the Hunterian Museum. They seem to be absolutely
+mineralised. Though imperfect, they indicate that their possessor was
+adult and of pygmy stature. The thigh-bone in particular is of interest,
+for an upper fragment presents a curious conformation of the rounded
+prominence called the greater trochanter. In this feature, and in regard
+to the small size of the head of the bone, the femur is found to differ
+from most other ancient fossil thigh-bones, and from those of modern
+human beings, with the exception of some pygmy types, viz. the dwarf-like
+cave-dwellers of Aurignac (compared by Pruner-Bey in 1868 to the
+Bushmen), the aborigines of the Andaman islands, and the aboriginal
+Bushmen of South Africa. A full description of the bones has not been
+published, but will probably appear very shortly.
+
+
+                      _Grimaldi_ (_Mentone Caves_).
+
+Among the numerous human skeletons yielded by the caves of Mentone, two
+were discovered at a great depth in a cave known as the 'Grotte des
+Enfants.' The excavations were set on foot by the Prince of Monaco, and
+these particular skeletons have been designated the 'Grimaldi' remains.
+
+Their chief interest (apart from the evidence as to a definite interment
+having taken place) consists in the alleged presence of 'negroid'
+characters. The skeletons are those of a young man (cf. Fig. 17), and an
+aged woman. The late Professor Gaudry examined the jaw of the male
+skeleton. He noted the large dimensions of the teeth, the prognathism,
+the feeble development of the chin, and upon such grounds pointed out the
+similarity of this jaw to those of aboriginal natives of Australia. Some
+years later Dr Verneau, in describing the same remains, based a claim to
+(African) negroid affinity on those characters, adding thereto evidence
+drawn from a study of the limb bones. In both male and female alike, the
+lower limbs are long and slender, while the forearm and shin-bones are
+relatively long when compared respectively with the arm and the
+thigh-bones.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 17. Profile view of young male skull of the type
+                 designated that of 'Grimaldi,' and alleged to present
+                 'negroid' features. _Locality._ Deeper strata in the
+                 Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Birkner, after
+                 Verneau, modified.)]
+
+From a review of the evidence it seems that the term 'negroid' is
+scarcely justified, and there is no doubt that the Grimaldi skeletons
+could be matched without difficulty by skeletons of even recent date.
+Herein they are strongly contrasted with skeletons of the Neanderthal
+group. And although modern Europeans undoubtedly may possess any of the
+osteological characters claimed as 'negroid' by Dr Verneau, nevertheless
+the African negro races possess those characters more frequently and more
+markedly. Caution in accepting the designation 'negroid' is therefore
+based upon reluctance to allow positive evidence from two or three
+characters to outweigh numerous negative indications; and besides this
+consideration, it will be admitted that two specimens provide but a
+feeble basis for supporting the superstructure thus laid on their
+characters. Lastly Dr Verneau has been at some pains to shew that skulls
+of the 'Grimaldi-negroid' type persist in modern times. Yet the
+possessors of many and probably most such modern crania were white men
+and not negroes.
+
+Enough has however been related to shew how widely the skeletons from the
+'Grotte des Enfants' differ from the Palaeolithic remains associated as
+the Neanderthal type.
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+_South America._ With the exception of Pithecanthropus, all the
+discoveries mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were made in Europe.
+From other parts of the world, actual human remains referable to earlier
+geological epochs are scanty save in South America. The discoveries made
+in this part of the New World have been described at great length. In
+many instances, claims to extraordinary antiquity have been made on their
+behalf. It is necessary therefore to examine the credentials of such
+specimens. Upon an examination of the evidence, I have come to the
+conclusion that two instances only deserve serious attention and
+criticism.
+
+
+                               _Baradero._
+
+Fragmentary remains of a human skeleton: the mandible is the best
+preserved portion; unfortunately the front part has been broken off so
+that no conclusion can be formed as to the characters of the chin.
+Otherwise in regard to its proportions, some resemblance is found with
+the mandible of the Spy skull (No. 1). More important and definite is the
+direction of the grinding surfaces of the molar teeth. In the lower jaw,
+this surface is said to look forwards. The interest of this observation
+consists in the fact that the tooth from Taubach presents the same
+feature, which is unusual.
+
+Beyond these, the skeleton from the löss of Baradero presents no
+distinctive features save the remarkable length of the upper limbs.
+
+
+                            _Monte Hermoso._
+
+From this region two bones were obtained at different dates. These are an
+atlas vertebra (the vertebra next to the skull) and a thigh-bone. The
+latter is of less than pygmy dimensions. Both are from fully adult
+skeletons.
+
+An attempt has been made to reconstruct an individual (the Tetraprothomo
+of Ameghino) to which the two bones should be referred. It will be
+noticed that the circumstances bear some, although a very faint, analogy
+to those in which the remains of Pithecanthropus were found. The results
+are however extraordinarily different. Professor Branco has ably shewn
+that in the case of the bones from Monte Hermoso, the association in one
+and the same skeleton would provide so large a skull in proportion to the
+rest of the body, that the result becomes not only improbable, but
+impossible. It is therefore necessary to treat the bones separately. If
+this is done, there is no reason to regard the thigh-bone as other than
+that of a large monkey of one of the varieties known to have inhabited
+South America in prehistoric as well as in recent times.
+
+The vertebra is more interesting. It is small but thick and strong in a
+degree out of proportion to its linear dimensions. Professor
+Lehmann-Nitsche supposes that it may have formed part of a skeleton like
+that of Pithecanthropus, that is to say that it is not part of a pygmy
+skeleton. On the other hand, Dr Rivet considers that the Monte Hermoso
+vertebra could be matched exactly by several specimens in the large
+collection of exotic human skeletons in the National Museum, Paris. Be
+this as it may, there is no doubt that the atlas vertebra in question
+constitutes the most interesting discovery of its kind made so far in
+South America. It is important to notice that time after time the
+attempts made to demonstrate the early origin of Man in the American
+Continent have resulted in failure, which in some instances has been
+regrettably ignominious.
+
+
+              _Combe Capelle_ (_H. aurignacensis hauseri_).
+
+Returning to Europe, it is to be noted that in a rock-shelter near
+Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), the excavations of Dr Hauser led to the
+discovery in 1909 of an entire human skeleton of the male sex. The
+interment (for such it was) had taken place in the Aurignacian period.
+The skeleton presents a very striking appearance. In stature, no
+important divergence from the Neanderthal type can be noted. But the more
+vertical forehead, more boldly-curved arc of the brain-case, the
+diminished brow-ridges, large mastoid processes and distinct canine
+fossae provide a complete contrast between the Aurignac man and those of
+the Neanderthal group. Moreover the Aurignac jaw has a slight projection
+at the chin, where an 'internal process' is now distinct. The brain-case
+has dolicho-cephalic proportions in a marked degree. The limb bones are
+straight and slender, and not so much enlarged in the regions of the
+several joints.
+
+The Aurignac skeleton of Combe Capelle has been associated with several
+others by Professor Klaatsch. By some authorities they are considered as
+transitional forms bridging the gap between the early Palaeolithic types
+and those of the existing Hominidae. But Professor Klaatsch evidently
+regards them as intruders and invaders of the territory previously
+occupied by the more lowly Neanderthaloid type.
+
+
+                             _Galley Hill._
+
+Among the skeletons which have been thus associated with the Aurignac
+man, are three which have for many years attracted the attention of
+anthropologists. For this reason, no detailed account of their characters
+will be given here. Of the three instances referred to, two are the
+fragmentary skull-caps of the skeletons found at Brüx and at Brünn in
+Moravia. The latter specimen is generally described as Brünn (91) to
+distinguish it from Brünn (85), a different and earlier find of less
+interest.
+
+It will suffice to mention here that both specimens agree in possessing
+what may be described as a distinctly mitigated form of the characters so
+strongly developed in the Neanderthal skull and its allies. The Aurignac
+and Brüx skulls are distinctly longer and narrower than that of Brünn
+(91). The limb bones are not available for the purposes of evidence.
+
+The third specimen possesses a very much greater interest. It is known as
+the Galley Hill skeleton from the site of its discovery near Northfleet
+in Kent. Since it was first described by Mr E. T. Newton (in 1895), much
+literature has accumulated about the difficult problems presented by the
+Galley Hill skeleton. By some authors it is regarded as clearly
+associated with the other examples just mentioned (Brüx, Brünn, and
+Aurignac). Others reject its claims to high antiquity; of the latter some
+are courteous, others are scornful, but all are absolutely decided.
+Having investigated the literature as well as I could, and having seen
+the cranium, I decided that the claims to great antiquity made on its
+behalf do really justify its inclusion. But I am quite convinced that the
+skeleton will give no more than very general indications. Thus the bones
+are fragile in the extreme. And besides this, the skull is so contorted
+that measurements made in the usual way must be extraordinarily
+misleading and the possible error is too great to be successfully allowed
+for (cf. Fig. 18).
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 18. Outline tracing of the Galley Hill skull,
+                 viewed from above. (From Klaatsch.)
+                 --- Galley Hill.          =---= Ancient German.
+                 ...  Neanderthal.         =...=  Modern South German.]
+
+To insist upon these points is the more important since nowadays various
+indices based on such measurements of the Galley Hill cranium will be
+found tabulated with data yielded by other skulls, and yet no mark of
+qualification distinguishes the former figures.
+
+The description of the skeleton may be given in a very few words. In the
+great majority of its characters, it is not seen to differ from modern
+human beings (though the stature is small, viz. 1600 mm., 5 ft. 3 in.).
+And so far as I am able to judge, the characters claimed as distinctive
+(separating the Galley Hill skull from modern dolichocephalic European
+skulls) are based upon observations containing a very large possibility
+of error.
+
+Having regard to such statements, the inference is that the Galley Hill
+skull does not in fact differ essentially from its modern European
+counterparts. Similar conclusions have been formed in regard to the other
+parts of this skeleton. It is important to note that the specimen does
+not lose its interest on this account.
+
+
+                               _Summary._
+
+From the foregoing descriptions, it follows that of the most ancient
+remains considered, at least three divisions can be recognised. In the
+first place, come the examples described as Pithecanthropus and _Homo
+heidelbergensis_ (Mauer). In the second category come instances as to
+which no reasonable doubt as to their definitely human characters now
+exists (save possibly in the case of the Taubach tooth and the Hermoso
+atlas). Of the members of this second series, two sub-divisions here
+designated (_A_) and (_B_) can be demonstrated; these with the first
+examples complete the threefold grouping set out in the table following,
+with which Table A, p. 85, should be compared.
+
+  GROUP I.  Early ancestral forms.  _Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis._
+
+  GROUP II.
+       _Subdivision A.  Homo primigenius.          Ex. gr. La Chapelle._
+                                                   {H. fossilis. _Ex.
+       _Subdivision B.  H. recens_; with varieties {gr. Galley Hill._
+                                                   {H. sapiens.
+
+Taking the first group (Pithecanthropus and _Homo heidelbergensis_) it is
+to be noticed that close correlation is quite possible. Besides this,
+evidence exists in each case to the effect that far-distant human
+ancestors are hereby revealed to their modern representatives. Of their
+physical characters, distinct indications are given of the possession of
+a small brain in a flattened brain-case associated with powerful jaws;
+the lower part of the face being distinguished by the absence of any
+projection of the chin. The teeth indicate with some degree of
+probability that their diet was of a mixed nature, resembling in this
+respect the condition of many modern savage tribes. Beyond this, the
+evidence is weak and indefinite. It is highly probable that these men
+were not arboreal: though whether they habitually assumed the distinctive
+erect attitude is a point still in doubt. And yet again, while the
+indications are not clear, it is probable that in stature they were
+comparable, if not superior, to the average man of to-day.
+
+Passing from this division to the second, a region of much greater
+certainty is entered. Of the second group, one subdivision (_A_) retains
+certain characters of the earlier forms. Thus the massive continuous
+brow-ridge persists, as do also the flattened brain-case with a large
+mass of jaw-muscle, and a ponderous chinless lower jaw. For the rest, the
+points of contrast are much more prominent than those of similarity. The
+brain has increased in size. This increase is very considerable in
+absolute amount. But relatively also to the size of the possessor, the
+increase in brain-material is even more striking, for the stature and
+consequently bulk and weight are less. The thigh-bone offers important
+points of difference, the earlier long slender form (in _P. erectus_)
+being now replaced by a shorter, curved, thick substitute. If there has
+been inheritance here, marked and aberrant variation is also observed.
+
+The second subdivision (_B_) remains for consideration. Here the stature
+has not appreciably changed. The limb bones are long, slender, and less
+curved than those of the other associated human beings (_A_), and herein
+the earliest type is suggested once more. But the differences occur now
+in the skull. The brain is as large as in the other subdivision (_A_)
+and in modern men. The brain-case is becoming elevated: the brow-ridges
+are undergoing reduction; this process, commencing at their outer ends,
+expresses to some extent the degree of reduction in the muscles and bone
+of the lower jaw. The teeth are smaller and the chin becomes more
+prominent. The distinction from modern types of humanity is often
+impossible.
+
+In the next chapter some account is given of the circumstances under
+which the bones were discovered, and of the nature of their surroundings.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER III
+
+                       ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS AND CAVES
+
+
+The principal characters of the oldest known human remains having been
+thus set forth, the circumstances of their surroundings next demand
+attention. A brief indication of these will be given with the aid of the
+illustrations provided in the original memoirs in each case, and the
+order of descriptions followed in the preceding chapter will be observed.
+
+_Pithecanthropus._ The remains of Pithecanthropus were recovered from an
+alluvial deposit at Trinil. A section of this is shewn in Fig. 19. An
+idea may thus be gained of the very considerable amount of superincumbent
+materials. The associated fauna cannot be compared directly to that of
+any Western European locality. But in comparison with the modern fauna of
+Java, the strata in which the Pithecanthropus was found shew a
+predominance of extinct species, though not of genera. Elephants and
+hippopotami were present: they point to a close relation between the
+fauna of Trinil and that of certain Siwalik strata in India, referred to
+a late Pliocene age. The difference of opinion upon this point has been
+mentioned in the preceding chapter: here it will suffice to repeat that a
+final conclusion does not appear to have been reached, and that the
+experts who have examined the strata in situ still differ from each
+other.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. _A_
+                 vegetable soil. _B_ Sand-rock. _C_ Lapilli-rock. _D_
+                 Level at which the bones were found. _E_ Conglomerate.
+                 _F_ Clay. _H_ Rainy-season level of river. _I_ Dry-season
+                 level of river. (From Dubois.)]
+
+_Mauer._ Impressed by the similarity of the conditions at Mauer to those
+of the fossiliferous tufa-beds near Taubach and Weimar, Dr Schoetensack
+had anticipated the possibility of obtaining valuable fossil relics from
+the former locality. For some twenty years, Dr Schoetensack kept in touch
+with the workmen of Mauer, and thus when the jawbone was found, he was
+summoned at once. Even so, the jaw had been removed from its
+resting-place, and broken in two fragments. Yet there is no doubt as to
+the exact position in which it was found. Sand and löss (a fine earthy
+deposit) had accumulated above it to a thickness of seventy feet. The
+nature of the surroundings may be estimated by reference to the
+illustration (Fig. 20) reproducing Dr Schoetensack's photograph of the
+sand-pit. The sands which contained the mandible represent an alluvial
+deposit, and so far resemble the Trinil beds in Java. The attempt to
+institute an exact comparison would be unprofitable, but on the whole it
+would seem that, of the two, the Mauer sands represent the later stage.
+The fauna associated with the Mauer jaw includes such forms as _Elephas
+antiquus_, _Rhinoceros etruscus_, _Ursus arvernensis_, _U. deningeri_ (an
+ancestral form of _U. spelaeus_), together with a species of horse
+intermediate between _Equus stenonis_, and the fossil horse found at
+Taubach. The cave-lion, bison, and various deer have also been
+recognised.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. X (in white)
+                 position of jawbone when found. (From Birkner, after
+                 Schoetensack.)]
+
+The aspect of this collection shews a marked similarity to that of the
+so-called Forest-bed of Cromer, though at the same time indicating a
+later age. The Mauer jaw must therefore be assigned to the very earliest
+part of the Pleistocene epoch. In his original memoir, Dr Schoetensack
+gave no account of any associated 'industry,' in the form of stone
+implements. But now (1911) Professor Rutot unhesitatingly (though the
+reasons are not stated) ascribes to the horizon of the Mauer jaw, that
+division of the eolithic industries termed by him the "Mafflien." Upon
+the correctness of such a view judgment may well be reserved for the
+present.
+
+_Taubach_. The bone-bed (_Knochenschicht_) of Taubach whence the two
+human teeth were recovered, lies at a depth of some 15 feet (5·2 m.) from
+the adjacent surface-soil. No fewer than eleven distinct horizons have
+been recognised in the superincumbent strata. Palaeoliths had often been
+obtained from the same stratum as that which yielded the human teeth. Dr
+Weiss referred it to the first, i.e. the earlier of two inter-glacial
+periods judged to have occurred in this region. The associated fauna
+includes _Elephas antiquus_, _Rhinoceros merckii_, _Bison priscus_, with
+Cervidae and representatives of swine, beaver and a bear. The similarity
+of this assemblage to that of the Mauer Sands has been noted already.
+
+The hippopotamus however does not seem to have been recorded in either
+locality. Nevertheless, the general aspect of the mammalian fauna is
+'southern' (_faune chaude_ of French writers). Upon this conclusion, much
+depends, for the Palaeolithic implements (claimed as contemporaneous with
+the extinct 'southern' mammals recorded in the foregoing paragraphs) are
+said to correspond to the type of Le Moustier. But Mousterian implements
+are (it is alleged) practically never associated with 'southern' animals,
+so that in this respect the Taubach bone-bed provides a paradox. Without
+discussing this paradox at length, it may be stated that the implements
+just described as 'Mousterian' are not recognised as such by all the
+experts. Thus Obermaier identifies them with those of Levallois, _i.e._ a
+late S. Acheul type (cf. Obermaier, 1909). Others declare that the type
+is not that of Le Moustier, but of Chelles. The latter type of implement
+is found habitually in association with the southern fauna, and thus the
+paradox described above may prove to be apparent only and not real. But
+the unravelling of the different opinions relating to the Taubach finds
+is among the easier tasks presented to anyone desirous of furnishing a
+clear statement of the actual state of our knowledge on these matters.
+The difficulties with which the whole subject bristles may thus be
+realised.
+
+_Krapina._ Researches productive of evidence as to the existence of
+Palaeolithic man in Croatia, were commenced at Krapina so long ago as
+August, 1899, by Professor Kramberger. A preliminary report was
+published in December, 1899. Until the year 1904 these researches passed
+almost unnoticed in this country. The site was not exhausted until 1905.
+The actual excavations were made in a rock-shelter on the right bank of
+the Krapini[vc]a river, near the village of Krapina. The rock-shelter had
+been to some extent invaded not long before the archaeological work
+commenced, and evidence of early human occupation of the site was
+revealed in the form of dark bands of earth, containing much charcoal.
+These bands were seen as lines in the lower parts of the exposed section
+of the cave contents. Fragments of human and other bones to the number of
+several thousands were removed. In one season's work six hundred stone
+implements were found.
+
+A section of the several strata has been published and is reproduced in
+Fig. 21. Human bones or artefacts were found throughout a wide series of
+strata, in which no variations of a cultural nature were detected.
+Throughout the period of human occupation, the Palaeolithic inmates of
+the cave remained on an unaltered and rather lowly level of culture. This
+is described by some authorities as Mousterian, by others as Aurignacian;
+in either case as of an early Palaeolithic aspect.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. 3, 4
+                 strata with human remains. 1 _b_ former level of
+                 river-bed. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)]
+
+But when the animal remains are considered, Krapina seems to present the
+difficulty already encountered in the case of Taubach. For there is no
+doubt but that the 'southern' fauna is to some extent represented at
+Krapina. This qualified form of statement is employed because one
+representative only, viz. _Rhinoceros merckii_, has been discovered,
+whereas its habitual companions, _Elephas antiquus_ and Hippopotamus,
+have left no traces at Krapina. Other animals associated with the
+cave-men of Krapina are not so commonly found in the presence of the
+_Rhinoceros merckii_. Thus the _Ursus spelaeus_, _U. arctos_, _Bos
+primigenius_, and the Arctomys (Marmot) are suggestive of a more northern
+fauna. But the presence of even a possibly stray _Rhinoceros merckii_ is
+sufficient to confer an aspect of great antiquity on this early Croatian
+settlement. No evidence of formal interments has come to light, and as
+regards the cannibalistic habits of the human cave-dwellers, no more than
+the merest surmise exists.
+
+_S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey._ In the cave thus designated, old hearths were
+met with at a depth of twenty-five feet below the surface. Human beings
+are represented by teeth only. No evidence of interments has been
+recorded. The implements are of Mousterian type. Associated with the
+hearths and implements were many fragmentary remains of animals. Up to
+the present time, the following forms have been identified: _Rhinoceros
+tichorhinus_ (the hairy rhinoceros), the Reindeer, and two varieties of
+Horse. So far as this evidence goes, the age assigned to the implements
+is supported, or at least not contra-indicated. It is most improbable
+that the period represented can be really earlier than the Mousterian,
+though it might be somewhat later. That the Krapina teeth (which so
+curiously resemble those of S. Brélade's Bay in respect of the fusion of
+their roots) should be assigned to the same (Mousterian) epoch is perhaps
+significant.
+
+_La Chapelle-aux-Saints_ (_Corrèze_). This is the best example of an
+interment referable to the early Palaeolithic age (Fig. 22). Two reasons
+for this statement may be given. In the first place, the skeleton lay in
+a distinctly excavated depression, beneath which no signs of an earlier
+settlement are recorded. Secondly, the superincumbent strata can be
+assigned to one period only of the archaeological series, viz. that of Le
+Moustier. Indications of the preceding period (S. Acheul) as well as of
+the subsequent one (Aurignac) are practically negligible. Moreover the
+surroundings had not been disturbed since the interment: this is shewn by
+the leg-bones of a large bovine animal (Bison or Bos) found in their
+natural relations just above the head of the human skeleton.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints
+                 (Corrèze). (From Boule.)]
+
+The latter lay on the back, the right arm bent, the left extended; both
+legs were contracted and to the right. In general, this attitude recalls
+that of the skeletons of La Ferrassie and the Grotte des Enfants
+(Grimaldi). At Le Moustier too, the skeleton was found in a somewhat
+similar position.
+
+At La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the associated fauna includes the Reindeer,
+Horse, a large bovine form (? Bison), _Rhinoceros tichorhinus_, the Ibex,
+Wolf, Marmot, Badger and Boar.
+
+It would seem that this particular cave had served only as a tomb. For
+other purposes its vertical extent is too small. The stone artefacts are
+all perfect tools: no flakes or splinters being found as in habitations.
+The animal remains are supposed to be relics of a funeral feast (or
+feasts). But the presence of the Rhinoceros is perhaps antagonistic to
+such an explanation.
+
+_Le Moustier_ (_Dordogne_). The skeleton lay on its right side, the right
+arm bent and supporting the head; the left arm was extended. The stratum
+upon which the body rested consisted largely of worked flint implements.
+These are assigned to the later Acheulean and earlier Mousterian epochs.
+
+Two features in contrast with the conditions at La Chapelle are to be
+noticed. It is doubtful whether the skeleton at Le Moustier had been
+literally interred. It seems rather to have been placed on what was at
+the time the floor of the grotto, and then covered partly with earth on
+which implements were scattered. Indications of a definite grave were
+found at La Chapelle. Again at Le Moustier, other parts of the same
+grotto had been occupied as habitations of the living. At La Chapelle
+this seems not to have been the case.
+
+The evidence of the accompanying animal remains also differs in the two
+cases. At Le Moustier, only small and very fragmentary animal bones with
+the tooth of an ox were found in the immediate vicinity of the human
+skeleton. An extended search revealed bones of _Bos primigenius_ in the
+cave. No bones of the Reindeer were found and their absence is specially
+remarked by Professor Klaatsch, as evidence that the skeleton at Le
+Moustier is of greater antiquity than the skeleton accompanied by
+reindeer bones at La Chapelle. In any case, it would seem that no great
+lapse of time separates the two strata.
+
+_La Ferrassie._ The skeleton was found in the same attitude as those of
+La Chapelle and Le Moustier, viz. in the dorsal position, the right arm
+bent, the left extended, both legs being strongly flexed at the knee and
+turned to the right side. The bones were covered by some 3·5 m. of
+_débris_: stone implements were yielded by strata above and below the
+body respectively. Beneath the skeleton, the implements are of Acheulean
+type, while above and around it the type of Le Moustier was encountered.
+Aurignacian implements occurred still nearer the surface.
+
+In regard to the evidence of interment the conditions here resemble those
+at Le Moustier rather than those of La Chapelle. The human skeleton did
+not appear to have been deposited in a grave, but simply laid on the
+ground, covered no doubt by earth upon which flint implements were
+scattered. But the cave continued to be occupied until at the close of
+the Aurignacian period a fall of rock sealed up the entrance. It is
+difficult to realise the conditions of life in such a cave, after the
+death of a member of the community, unless, as among the cave-dwelling
+Veddas of Ceylon, the cave were temporarily abandoned (Seligmann, 1911).
+It is possible that the normal accumulation of animal remains created
+such an atmosphere as would not be greatly altered by the addition of a
+human corpse, for Professor Tylor has recorded instances of such
+interments among certain South American tribes. But it is also
+conceivable that the enormously important change in custom from
+inhumation to cremation, may owe an origin to some comparatively simple
+circumstance of this kind. The animal remains at La Ferrassie include
+Bison, Stag, and Horse, with a few Reindeer. The general aspect is thus
+concordant with that at La Chapelle.
+
+_Pech de l'Aze._ It is impossible to decide whether the child's skull had
+been buried intentionally or not. The associated fauna is apparently
+identical with that of La Ferrassie and La Chapelle.
+
+_Forbes Quarry_ (_Gibraltar_). Of the surroundings of the Forbes Quarry
+skull at the time of its discovery nothing is known. In 1910 the present
+writer explored Forbes Quarry and a small cave opening into it. But no
+evidence of the presence of prehistoric man was obtained. Bones of recent
+mammalia and certain molluscs found during the excavations, throw no
+light on this subject.
+
+_Andalusia._ At the time of writing, only the following information is
+available as to the surroundings of these human cave-bones. They were
+discovered on or near the floor of a deep fissure leading to a series of
+labyrinthine passages. The walls of the fissure or cave were decorated
+with drawings of animals resembling those at Cretas in Aragon. Besides
+the mineralised bones, other fragments of less antiquated aspect were
+found. Potsherds were also obtained, but I have no information as to the
+occurrence of implements.
+
+_Grotte des Enfants_ (_Mentone_). With regard to the two 'negroid'
+skeletons of this cave, the first important point is the enormous
+thickness of accumulated _débris_ by which the bones were covered. A
+depth of some twenty-four feet had been reached before the discovery was
+made (Fig. 23).
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone.
+                 _I._ stratum in which the "Grimaldi" skeletons were
+                 found. (From Boule.)]
+
+The bodies had been definitely interred, large stones being found in
+position, adjusted so as to protect the heads particularly. The bodies
+had been placed on the right side. Of the woman, both arms were bent as
+were the lower limbs. The male skeleton has the right arm flexed, but the
+left extended (as in the cases of La Chapelle, Le Moustier, and La
+Ferrassie).
+
+It is practically certain that the skeletons do not belong to an epoch
+represented, as regards its culture or fauna, by strata lower than that
+which supported the human remains. This conclusion is very important
+here. For the evidence of the stone implements accompanying the human
+bones is fairly definite: it points to the Mousterian age. The animal
+bones are those of the Reindeer and Cave Hyaena. The presence of the
+former animal supports the conclusion arrived at on the evidence of the
+human artefacts. The presence of the Cave Hyaena does not controvert that
+conclusion.
+
+But an interesting fact remains to be considered. Below the two human
+skeletons, the animal remains are those of the 'southern' fauna. All the
+characteristic representatives were found, viz. _Elephas antiquus_,
+_Rhinoceros merckii_, and Hippopotamus. The Hyaena was also associated
+with these large animals. It is not clearly stated whether implements of
+Mousterian type occurred in these, the deepest strata of the cave-floor.
+Were this so, the contention made in respect of the Taubach implements
+(cf. _supra_, p. 67) would be remarkably corroborated, as would also the
+somewhat similar suggestion made in regard to Krapina. For the moment,
+however, it must suffice to attribute these human remains of negroid
+aspect to the Mousterian period at Mentone. Inasmuch as the reindeer
+appears in several strata overlying the remains of the Grimaldi race (for
+so it has been named by Dr Verneau), it is certainly conceivable that the
+two individuals are Aurignacian or even later. But this is to enter a
+wilderness of surmise. Human skeletons were actually found in those more
+superficial strata and also were associated with the Reindeer. But their
+cranial features are of a higher type (Cro-Magnon) and contrast very
+clearly with those of the more deeply buried individuals.
+
+_South America._ The two discoveries mentioned in the preceding chapter
+were made in the so-called Pampas formation of Argentina. This formation
+has been subdivided by geologists into three successive portions, viz.
+upper, middle and lower. The distinction is based partly upon evidence
+derived from the actual characters of deposits which differ according to
+their level. But the molluscan fauna has also been used as a means of
+distinction. The whole formation is stated by some to be fluviatile.
+Other observers speak of it as Löss. This need not necessarily exclude a
+fluviatile origin, but speaking generally that term now suggests an
+aerial rather than a subaqueous deposit. The upper subdivision is
+designated the yellow löss in contrast to the brown löss forming the
+middle layer. Opinion is much divided as to the exact geological age of
+the Pampas formation. Ameghino refers it to the Pliocene period,
+excepting the lower divisions which he regards as upper Miocene.
+Professor Lehmann-Nitsche assigns Pliocene antiquity to the lowest
+subdivision only. Dr Steinmann regards the middle and lower subdivisions
+as equivalents of the 'older' löss of European Pleistocene deposits. The
+latter determinations are more probably correct than is the first.
+
+_Baradero._ The Baradero skeleton was obtained from the middle formation
+or brown löss, in a locality marked by the presence of mollusca
+corresponding with modern forms, and contrasted with the Tertiary
+Argentine mollusca. The skeleton was in a 'natural' (_i.e._ not a
+contracted) position, the head being depressed on the front of the chest.
+No associated implements or remains of mammalian skeletons are recorded.
+
+_Monte Hermoso._ The vertebra and femur were found in the lower
+subdivision of the Pampas formation. We have seen that Ameghino refers
+this to the Miocene epoch: Lehmann-Nitsche speaks of it as Pliocene,
+Steinmann's opinion suggests a still later date, while Scott also
+declares that no greater age than that of the Pleistocene period can be
+assigned. The two specimens were obtained at very different times, an
+interval of many years separating the dates of the respective
+discoveries. So far as is known, no mammalian or other animal remains
+have been yielded by the strata in question, so that the whole case in
+regard to evidence is one of the most unsatisfactory on record. Indeed
+the whole question of 'dating' the Argentine discoveries, whether
+absolutely or relatively, must be regarded as an unsolved problem.
+
+_Combe Capelle_ (_Dordogne_). The circumstances of this discovery were as
+follows. The skeleton lay in an extended position, and it had been placed
+in an excavation made for the purpose of interment. This excavation
+entered a stratum distinguished as Mousterian. But the interment is
+considered to be later, and of Aurignacian antiquity. Stone implements of
+Aurignacian type were disposed around the skeleton: in addition to these,
+a number of molluscan shells were arranged about the skull. This
+suggestion of ornament would of itself suggest the later period to which
+the skeleton is assigned. No remains of animals are mentioned in the
+accounts accessible to me.
+
+_Brüx_ (_Bohemia_). The Brüx skeleton was discovered in 1871. It lay some
+five feet beneath the surface in a deposit which seems to be an ancient
+one of fluviatile origin. The Biela river is not far from the spot. The
+bones were very fragmentary, and in particular the skull-cap has been
+reconstructed from no less than a dozen fragments. The limb bones were
+also fractured. Near the skeleton, some remains of an Ox were found on
+the same level. Two feet above the skeleton, a stone implement, seemingly
+a Neolithic axe, was brought to light.
+
+The information is thus meagre in the extreme, and when the condition of
+the skull is taken into account, it is evident that the Brüx skeleton is
+not one upon which far-reaching arguments can be successfully based. The
+interest of the specimen depends above all upon the results of the
+careful analysis of its characters made by Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906).
+
+_Brünn_ (1871). This discovery was made at a depth of 4·5 metres in red
+löss. Close to the human bones lay the tusk and the shoulder-blade of a
+Mammoth. The same stratum subsequently yielded the skull of a young
+Rhinoceros (_R. tichorhinus_): some ribs of a Rhinoceros are scored or
+marked in a way suggestive of human activity: other ribs of the same kind
+were artificially perforated. More noteworthy, however, is a human
+figurine carved in ivory of a Mammoth tusk. Several hundreds of the shell
+of _Dentalium badense_ lying close to the human remains were truncated in
+such a way as to suggest that they had once formed a necklace.
+
+_Galley Hill_ (_Kent_). The gravel-pit whence the skeleton was obtained
+invades the 'high-level terrace-gravel' of the Thames valley. Such is the
+opinion of expert geologists (Hinton[26]). In the gravel-pit a section
+through ten feet of gravel is exposed above the chalk. The bones were
+eight feet from the top of the gravel. Palaeolithic implements of a
+primitive type have been obtained from the same deposit at Galley Hill.
+No precise designation seems to have been assigned to them. From the
+published figures, they seem to correspond to the earlier Acheulean or to
+the Chellean type. One in particular, resembles the implements found at
+Reculver, and I have recently seen similar specimens which had been
+obtained by dredging off the Kentish coast near Whitstable. Some of the
+Galley Hill implements are compared to the high plateau forms from
+Ightham. These must be of great antiquity. Professor Rutot in 1903
+assigned the Galley Hill skeleton to a period by him named Mafflian. This
+diagnosis seems to have been based upon the characters of the implements.
+Recently however (1909) Professor Rutot has brought the skeleton down
+into the Strépyan epoch, which is much less ancient than that of Maffle.
+
+The associated fauna comes now into consideration. From the Galley Hill
+gravel-pit no mammalian remains other than the human skeleton have been
+reported, but the fauna of the 'high-level terrace' has been ascertained
+by observations in the vicinity of Galley Hill as well as in other parts
+of the Thames basin. The mollusc _Cyrena fluminalis_, indicative of a
+sub-tropical climate, has been found in these strata. As regards the
+mammalian fauna, it is interesting to compare the list given by Mr E. T.
+Newton in 1895, with that published by Mr M. A. C. Hinton in 1910 on the
+basis of independent observations.
+
+                        _Mr Newton's list_, 1895.
+
+     1. Elephas primigenius.
+     2. Hippopotamus.
+     3. Rhinoceros: species uncertain.
+     4. Bos.           "        "
+     5. Equus.         "        "
+     6. Cervus.        "        "
+     7. Felis leo.     "        "
+
+                        _Mr Hinton's list_, 1910.
+
+     1. Elephas antiquus (a more primitive form than E. primigenius).
+     2. No Hippopotamus (this occurs later, in the Middle Terrace).
+     3. Rhinoceros megarhinus.
+     4. Bos: species uncertain.
+     5. Equus: species similar to the Pliocene E. stenonis.
+     6. Cervus: 3 species: one resembles the Fallow-deer (C. dama), a
+        'southern' form.
+     7. Felis leo.
+     8. Sus: species uncertain: bones of limbs shew primitive features.
+     9. Canis: species uncertain.
+    10. Delphinus: species uncertain.
+    11. Trogontherium: species differing from the Pliocene form.
+    12. Various smaller rodents, such as Voles.
+
+No definitely 'Arctic' mammals are recorded: the general aspect of the
+above fauna shews a strong similarity to the Pliocene fauna, which
+appears to have persisted to this epoch without much alteration of the
+various types represented.
+
+
+                                 TABLE A
+
+  Table headings:
+  Col I:   Classification by characters of human bones[1]
+  Col II:  Example
+  Col III: Circumstances and surroundings - Immediate Surroundings (ImS)
+  Col IV:  Circumstances and surroundings - Associated animals (Asa)
+  Col V:   Circumstances and surroundings - Name of types of associated
+                                            implements (Nai)
+
+        I               II                III, IV, V                VI
+  Division II
+   Subdivision (1) Combe Capelle  ImS Cave                       Interment
+      _B_                         Asa Reindeer
+                                  Nai Aurignacian
+
+       "       (2) Galley Hill    ImS Alluvial drift of              ?
+                                      High Terrace[3]                No
+                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros megarhinus[2]
+                                      {Trogontherium (Rodent)
+                                      {Mimomys (Rodent)
+                                  Nai  Acheulean to ?Strépyan
+
+       "       (3) Grimaldi       ImS Cave                       Interment
+                    (Mentone)     Asa {Reindeer
+                                      {Hyaena spelaea
+                                      {Felis spelaea
+                                      {(Marmot in higher strata)
+                                  Nai Mousterian ?
+                                       also Aurignacian
+
+   Subdivision (4) La Ferrassie   ImS Cave                       Interment
+      _A_                         Asa {Reindeer
+                                      {Bison priscus
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (5) Pech de l'Aze  ImS Cave                        (Head
+                                  Asa {Reindeer                    only
+                                      {Bison priscus              found?)
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (6) Le Moustier    ImS Cave                       Interment
+                                  Asa {Bos primigenius
+                                      {_No reindeer_
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (7) La Chapelle    ImS Cave                       Interment
+                                  Asa {Reindeer (_scarce_)
+                                      {Bison priscus
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (8) S. Brélade     ImS Cave                           ?
+                                  Asa {Reindeer
+                                      {Bos ? sp.
+                                      {Rhinoceros tichorhinus
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (9) Krapina        ImS Cave (Rock-shelter)
+                                  Asa {Rhinoceros merckii
+                                      {Cave Bear
+                                      {Bos primigenius
+                                      {Marmot (Arctomys)
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (10) Taubach       ImS Alluvial Deposit[4]            No
+                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros merckii
+                                      {Felis leo
+                                      {No Hippopotamus
+                                  Nai {? Mousterian
+                                      {? Upper Acheulean
+                                      {  = Levallois
+                                      {? Chellean
+
+  Division I   (11) Mauer         ImS Alluvial deposit               No
+                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros etruscus(5)
+                                      {Ursus arvernensis
+                                      {No Hippopotamus
+                                  Nai None found
+
+       "       (12) Trinil        ImS Alluvial deposit               No
+                                  Asa {Hippopotamus?             interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros sivasoudaicus
+                                      {Other Sivalik types
+                                  Nai None found by Dubois
+
+  [1] South American remains and some others are omitted owing to
+      insufficiency of data relating to their surroundings.
+
+  [2] Names of fossil varieties of Rhinoceros. These are very confused.
+      The term R. _leptorhinus_ should be avoided altogether. R.
+      _megarhinus_ represents the R. _leptorhinus_ of Falconer and
+      Cuvier. R. _merckii_ represents R. _hemitoechus_ of Falconer, which
+      is the R. _leptorhinus_ of Owen and Boyd Dawkins. R. _tichorhinus_
+      is R. _antiquitatis_ of Falconer and some German writers.
+
+  [3] The formation of the High Terrace drift is earlier than the date of
+      arrival of the 'Siberian' invasion of Britain by certain Voles.
+      Already in Pliocene times, some Voles had come into Britain from
+      the south-east of Europe. But the Galley Hill man, if contemporary
+      with the High Terrace drift, had arrived in Britain ages before the
+      appearance of _Homo aurignacensis_ supposed by Klaatsch to be
+      closely allied, and to have come into Europe through Central if not
+      Northern Asia. The 'High Terrace' mammals have a 'Pliocene' facies.
+
+  [4] The upper strata at Taubach yielded Reindeer and Mammoth. Near
+      Weimar, Wüst says the stratigraphical positions of _R. merckii_ and
+      _R. antiquitatis_ have been found inverted.
+
+  [5] Typical Val d'Arno (Pliocene) form.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER IV
+
+                    ASSOCIATED ANIMALS AND IMPLEMENTS
+
+
+The most important of recent discoveries of the remains of early
+prehistoric man have now been considered. Not only the evidence of the
+actual remains, but also that furnished by their surroundings has been
+called upon. It is evident that the last decade has been remarkably
+productive of additions to the stock of information on these subjects.
+
+In the next place, enquiry has to be made whether any relation exists
+between the two methods of grouping, viz. (1) that in which the
+characters of the skeletons are taken as the test, and (2) that dependent
+upon the nature of the surroundings. A first attempt to elucidate the
+matter can be made by means of a tabulated statement, such as that which
+follows.
+
+In constructing this table, the various finds have been ordinated
+according to the degree of resemblance to modern Europeans presented by
+the respective skeletons. Thus Division II with Subdivision _B_ heads the
+list. Then follows Subdivision _A_, and finally Division I will be found
+in the lowest place. This order having been adopted, the remaining data
+were added in the sequence necessarily imposed upon them thereby.
+
+(_a_) In an analysis of this table the several columns should be
+considered in order. Taking that headed 'Immediate surroundings,' it is
+evident that whereas most of the members of Division II were 'cave-men,'
+two exceptions occur. Of these, the Galley Hill skeleton is by far the
+most remarkable. The Taubach remains represent, it will be remembered, a
+form almost on the extreme confines of humanity. That it should resemble
+the members of Division I, themselves in a similar position, is not very
+remarkable. And indeed it is perhaps in accordance with expectation, that
+remains of the more remote and primitive examples should be discovered,
+so to speak, 'in the open.' All the more noteworthy therefore is the
+position of the Galley Hill man, whose place according to his
+surroundings is at the end of the list opposite to that assigned to him
+by his physical conformation.
+
+(_b_) Passing to the 'Associated animals,' similar conclusions will be
+formed again. Thus in the first place, most of the 'cave-men' were
+accompanied by remains of the Reindeer. Le Moustier and Krapina are
+exceptions but provide Bison or Urus which are elsewhere associated with
+the Reindeer. Otherwise Galley Hill and Taubach again stand out as
+exceptions. Moreover they have again some features in common, just as has
+been noted in respect of their alluvial surroundings. For the Elephant
+(_E. antiquus_) is identical in both instances. But the Rhinoceros of the
+'high level' terrace gravel is not the same as that found at Taubach, and
+though the succession is discussed later, it may be stated at once that
+the _Rhinoceros megarhinus_ has been considered to stand in what may be
+termed a grand-parental relation to that of Taubach (_R. merckii_), the
+_Rhinoceros etruscus_ of the Mauer Sands representing the intervening
+generation (Gaudry[27], 1888). For the various names, reference should be
+made to the list of synonyms appended to Table A. Should further evidence
+of the relative isolation of the Galley Hill skeleton be required, the
+gigantic beaver (Trogontherium) is there to provide it, since nowhere
+else in this list does this rodent appear. The paradoxical position of
+the Galley Hill skeleton having been indicated, it is convenient to deal
+with all the examples of skeletons from alluvial deposits taken as a
+single group, irrespective of their actual characters.
+
+(i) The study of the animals found in the corresponding or identical
+_alluvial deposits_, leads to inferences which may be stated as follows.
+The Trinil (Java) fauna will not be included, since the Javanese and
+European animals are not directly comparable. If attention is confined to
+the remaining instances, viz. Galley Hill, Taubach and Mauer, agreement
+is shewn in respect of the presence of _Elephas antiquus_, and this is
+absent from all the cave-deposits considered here [_v. infra_ (ii) p.
+90]. A rhinoceros appears in all three localities, but is different in
+each. Finally, two (viz. Galley Hill and Mauer) of the three, provide at
+least one very remarkable mammalian form, viz. Trogontherium (_Mimomys
+cantianus_ is equally suggestive) of the high-level gravels, and the
+_Ursus arvernensis_ of the Mauer Sands.
+
+The significance of these animals may be indicated more clearly by the
+following statement. If the history of _Elephas antiquus_ be critically
+traced, this animal appears first in a somewhat hazy atmosphere, viz.
+that of the transition period between Pliocene and Pleistocene times. It
+is a more primitive form of elephant than the Mammoth. Indeed, Gaudry[27]
+(1888) placed it in a directly ancestral relation to the last-mentioned
+elephant. And though the two were contemporary for a space, yet _Elephas
+antiquus_ was the first to disappear. Moreover this elephant has much
+more definite associations with the southern group of mammals than has
+the Mammoth. Its presence is therefore indicative of the considerable
+antiquity of the surrounding deposits, provided always that the latter be
+contemporaneous with it. With regard to the Rhinoceros, the species _R.
+megarhinus_ and _R. etruscus_ have been found in definitely Pliocene
+strata. The former (_R. megarhinus_) seems to have appeared earliest (at
+Montpellier), whereas the Etruscan form owes its name to the late
+Pliocene formations of the Val d'Arno, in which it was originally
+discovered. The third species (_R. merckii_) is somewhat later, but of
+similar age to _Elephas antiquus_, with which it constantly appears. It
+is remarkable that the _R. etruscus_, though not the earliest to appear,
+seems yet to have become extinct before the older _R. megarhinus_. The
+latter was contemporary with _R. merckii_, though it did not persist so
+long as that species. With regard to the three alluvial deposits, the
+Rhinoceros provides a means of distinction not indicated by the
+elephantine representative, and the presence of _R. etruscus_ is a test
+for very ancient deposits. From what has been stated above, it follows
+that of the three localities the Mauer Sands have the more ancient
+facies, and it is significant that here also the human form proves to be
+furthest removed from modern men. But the other localities are not
+clearly differentiated, save that the Taubach strata are perhaps the more
+recent of the two.
+
+Coming next to the 'peculiar' animals; the _Ursus arvernensis_ of Mauer
+is almost as distinctively 'Pliocene' as its associate, _Rhinoceros
+etruscus_. The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable to these,
+nor to the Trogontherium (or Mimomys) of the high-level terrace gravel.
+These animals are also strongly suggestive of the Pliocene fauna.
+
+To sum up, it will be found that the evidence of the Elephant is to the
+effect that these alluvial deposits are of early Pleistocene age. It
+leads to the expectation that the fauna in general will have a
+'southern,' as contrasted with an 'arctic' aspect. From the study of the
+Rhinoceros it appears that the Mauer Sands are probably the most ancient
+in order of time, that the strata of Taubach are the latest of the three
+and that _Elephas antiquus_ will occur there (as indeed it does).
+
+The other animals mentioned clinch the evidence for the Pliocene
+resemblance, and (at latest) the early Pleistocene antiquity of the Mauer
+Sands and the high-level terrace gravels. Within the limits thus
+indicated, the deposit of Mauer is again shewn to be the oldest, followed
+by the terrace-gravels, while Taubach is the latest and youngest of the
+three. All the characteristic animals are now entirely extinct.
+
+For the reasons stated above, the fossil Javanese mammals of Trinil have
+not been discussed. It will suffice to note that on the whole they
+indicate a still earlier period than those of the European deposits in
+question.
+
+(ii) The animals associated with the _cave-men_ now call for
+consideration. The great outstanding feature is the constancy with
+which the Reindeer is found. This leads to a presumption that the climate
+was at least temperate rather than 'southern.' Beyond this, it will be
+noted that in general the cave-fauna is more familiar in aspect, the
+Reindeer having survived up to the present day, though not in the same
+area. Again, save in one locality, not a single animal out of those
+discussed in connection with the alluvial deposits appears here. The
+exception is the Krapina rock-shelter. The surviving animal is
+_Rhinoceros merckii_, described above as one of the later arrivals in the
+epochs represented by the alluvial deposits. Krapina does not provide the
+Reindeer, and in this respect is contrasted again with the remaining
+localities. Yet the presence of the Marmot at Krapina may be nearly as
+significant as that of the Reindeer would be.
+
+Another cave, viz. the Grotte des Enfants, may also need reconsideration.
+For instance, the _Rhinoceros merckii_ was found in the deepest strata of
+this cave: but I do not consider that adequate evidence is given of its
+contemporaneity with the two human skeletons here considered. But the
+Reindeer is found in the same cave, as indicated in the table.
+
+With the exception of Krapina therefore, the conditions are remarkably
+uniform. This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence from many caves not
+described in detail here because of the lack of human bones therein or
+the imperfection of such as were found. Such caves have yielded abundant
+evidence in regard to the 'associated fauna.' A few of the more important
+results of the investigation of the mammals may be given. Thus the
+distribution of the Reindeer is so constant that except in regard to its
+abundance or rarity when compared with the remains of the horse in the
+same cave, it is of little or no use as a discriminating agency. The
+Mammoth (_E. primigenius_) was contemporaneous with the Reindeer, but was
+plentiful while the Reindeer was still rare. A similar remark applies to
+the Hairy Rhinoceros (_R. tichorhinus_), and also to the Cave-Bear. The
+Cervidae (other than the Reindeer), the Equidae, the Suidae (Swine) and
+the smaller Rodentia (especially Voles) are under investigation, but the
+results are not applicable to the finer distinctions envisaged here.
+
+To sum up the outcome of this criticism; it appears that of the
+cave-finds, Krapina stands out in contrast with the remainder, in the
+sense that its fauna is more ancient, and is indicative of a southern
+rather than a temperate environment. The latitude of Krapina has been
+invoked by way of explaining this difference, upon the supposition that
+the _Rhinoceros merckii_ survived longer in the south. Yet Krapina does
+not differ in respect of latitude from the caves of Le Moustier and La
+Chapelle, while it is rather to the north of the Mentone caves. Lastly,
+some weight must be attached to the alleged discovery at Pont Newydd in
+Wales, of Mousterian implements with remains of _R. merckii_.
+
+The fauna of the other caves suggests temperate, if not sub-arctic
+conditions of climate. In all cases, the cave-finds are assignable to a
+period later in time than that in which the fluviatile deposits
+(previously discussed) were formed. The cave-men thus come within the
+later subdivisions of the Pleistocene period.
+
+(_c_) The fifth column of the table gives the types of stone implements
+found in association with the respective remains. As is well known, and
+as was stated in the introductory sentences of this book, stone artefacts
+constitute the second great class of evidence on the subject of human
+antiquity. As such they might appropriately have been accorded a
+separate chapter or even a volume. Here a brief sketch only of their
+significance in evidence will be attempted. The value of stone implements
+in deciding upon the age of deposits (whether in caves or elsewhere)
+depends upon the intimacy of the relation existing between various forms
+of implement and strata of different age. How close that intimacy really
+is, has been debated often and at great length. Opinions are still at
+variance in regard to details, but as to certain main points, no doubt
+remains. Yet the study is one in which even greater specialisation is
+needed than in respect of comparative osteology. The descriptions
+following these preliminary remarks are based upon as extensive an
+examination as possible, both of the literature, and of the materials.
+
+To discuss the validity of the claims made in favour of or against the
+recognition of certain individual types will be impossible, save in the
+very briefest form. The better-known varieties have received names
+corresponding to the localities where they were first discovered, or
+where by reason of their abundance they led to the recognition of their
+special value as a means of classification. These designations will be
+employed without further definition or explanation, save in a few
+instances.
+
+Commencing again with the fifth column of the table, the first point to
+notice is that no implements at all have been discovered in immediate
+association with the fossil remains at Mauer and Trinil (Java). Yet in
+the absence of evidence, it must not be concluded that the contemporary
+representatives of mankind were incapable of providing such testimony.
+Evidence will be adduced presently to show the incorrectness of such a
+conclusion.
+
+In the next place, the great majority of the cave-men are associated with
+implements of one and the same type, viz. the Mousterian, so called from
+the locality (Le Moustier) which has furnished so complete an example of
+ancient prehistoric man.
+
+Lastly, the Galley Hill skeleton maintains the distinctive position
+assigned to it, for as in the previous columns, it disagrees also here
+with the majority of the examples ranged near it.
+
+If enquiry be made as to the significance, _i.e._ the sequence in point
+of time and the general status of the various types of implements
+mentioned in the table, it will be found that all without exception are
+described as of Palaeolithic type. Indeed they furnish largely the
+justification for the application of that term (employed so often in
+Chapter II) to the various skeletons described there.
+
+To these Palaeolithic implements, others of the Neolithic types
+succeeded in Europe. [It is necessary to insist upon this succession as
+European, since palaeoliths are still in use among savage tribes, such as
+the aboriginal (Bush) natives of South Africa.] Confining attention to
+palaeoliths and their varieties, the discovery of a form alleged to fill
+the gap separating the most ancient Neolithic from the least ancient
+Palaeolithic types may be mentioned. The implements were obtained from
+the cave known as Le Mas d'Azil in the south of France.
+
+In Germany, the researches of Professor Schmidt[28] in the caverns of
+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          |
+  |                   |   Ofnet   |Sirgenstein|                         |
+  +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+
+  |A. Most superficial|    --     |  Bronze   |                         |
+  |                   |           |           |                         |
+  |                   | Neolithic |    --     |                         |
+  |                   |           |           |                         |
+  |B. 1. Intermediate |  Azilian  |    --     |                         |
+  |                   |                       |                         |
+  |                   |      Palaeolithic     |                         |
+  |                   |                       |                         |
+  |   2. Deepest      |Magdalenian|Magdalenian|} Myodes torquatus (the  |
+  |      stratum at   |           |           |} Banded Lemming)        |
+  |      Ofnet        |           |           |}                        |
+  |                   |           |           |}                        |
+  |   3.              |    --     | Solutréan |} Fauna of a northern    |
+  |                   |           |           |}  character throughout: |
+  |                   |           |           |}  with Reindeer,        |
+  |   4.              |    --     |Aurignacian|}  Mammoth, Rhinoceros   |
+  |                   |           |           |}  tichorhinus and Horse |
+  |                   |           |           |}                        |
+  |   5. Deepest      |    --     |Mousterian |} Myodes obensis (a      |
+  |      stratum at   |           |           |  Siberian Lemming)      |
+  |      Sirgenstein  |           |           |                         |
+  +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+
+
+When attention is turned from the cave-finds to those in alluvial
+deposits, names more numerous but less familiar meet the view. As the
+animals have been shewn to differ, so the types of implements provide a
+marked contrast. Yet a transition is suggested by the claim made on
+behalf of Mousterian implements for the Taubach deposits, a claim which
+(it will be remembered) is absolutely rejected by some experts of high
+authority.
+
+In pursuing the sequence of implements from the Mousterian back to still
+earlier types, cave-hunting will as a rule provide one step only, though
+this is of the greatest value. In a few caves, implements of the type
+made famous by discoveries in alluvial gravels at S. Acheul in France
+(and designated the Acheulean type) have been found in the deeper levels.
+Such a cave is that of La Ferrassie (cf. p. 74); another is that of La
+Chapelle, in which (it will be remembered) the Acheulean implements
+underlay the human interment. Kent's Hole in Devonshire is even more
+remarkable. For the lowest strata in this cavern yielded implements of
+the earliest Chellean form, though this important fact is not commonly
+recognised. Such caves are of the greatest interest, for they provide
+direct evidence of the succession of types, within certain limits. But
+the indefatigable labours of M. Commont[29] of Amiens have finally welded
+the two series, viz. the cave-implements and the river-drift implements,
+into continuity, by demonstrating in the alluvial deposits of the river
+Somme, a succession of types, from the Mousterian backwards to much more
+primitive forms. These newly-published results have been appropriately
+supplemented by discoveries in the alluvial strata of the Danube.
+Combining these results from the river deposits, and for the sake of
+comparison, adding those from the caves at Ofnet and Sirgenstein, a
+tabulated statement (Table II) has been drawn up.
+
+The two examples of human skeletons from alluvial deposits given in Table
+A are thus assigned to epochs distinguished by forms of implement more
+primitive than those found usually in caves; and moreover the more
+primitive implements are actually shewn to occur in deeper (_i.e._ more
+ancient) horizons where superposition has been observed. The greater
+antiquity of the two river-drift men (as contrasted with the cave-men)
+has been indicated already by the associated animals, and this evidence
+is now confirmed by the characters of the implements.
+
+It may be remarked again that the details of stratigraphical succession
+have but recently received complete demonstration, mainly through the
+researches of Messrs Commont, Obermaier[30], and Bayer[30]. The
+importance of such results is extraordinarily far-reaching, since a means
+is provided hereby of correlating archaeological with geological evidence
+to an extent previously unattained.
+
+(_d_) It will be noted that this advance has taken little or no account
+of actual human remains. For in the nature of things, implements will be
+preserved in river deposits, where skeletons would quickly disintegrate
+and vanish.
+
+                                TABLE II.
+
+             +---------------------------------------------+
+             |              A. Caves[1]                    |
+             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
+             |     Type of     |   Ofnet[2]  | Sirgenstein |
+             |    Implement    |             |     [2]     |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
+             |               1.|             |   Bronze    |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             | Neolithic     2.|  Neolithic  |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             | Intermediate  3.|   Azilian   |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             | Palaeolithic  4.| Magdalenian | Magdalenian |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |               5.|     --      |  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]   +-------------+-------------+--------------+
+  |                        |  Boule[2]   |    Penck    |   Hoernes    |
+  +------------------------+----  -------+-------------+--------------+
+  | Postglacial =4= = with | Magdalenian | Magdalenian |      --      |
+  | Achen and other        | Solutréan(4)|             |              |
+  | oscillations (Penck)   |             |             |              |
+  |                        |=============++            |              |
+  | =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   ++=============|
+  | (Penck)                |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  | =Glacial II=           |     ?       |      ?      |      --      |
+  | "Mindelian" of Penck   |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  | _Interglacial_ =1=     |     ?       |      ?      | Mousterian   |
+  | = Günz-Mindel interval |             |             |  Chellean    |
+  | (Penck)                |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  | =Glacial I= "Günzian"  |     ?       |      ?      |      --      |
+  | of Penck               |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  +------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
+
+
+  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
+  |                        |    1908      |    1908    |      1878       |
+  |    Penck's scheme[1]   +--------------+------------+-----------------+
+  |                        |    Rutot     |   Sollas   |  Skertchley[3]  |
+  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
+  | Postglacial =4= = with |  Neolithic   |     ?      |    Neolithic    |
+  | Achen and other        |    period    |            |      period     |
+  | oscillations (Penck)   |              |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial IV= 2nd       |    Lower     |     ?      | Hessle          |
+  | Pleistocene(2)         | Magdalenian  |            | Boulder-clay    |
+  | Glaciation of Boule.   |  Solutréan   |            |                 |
+  | "Würmian" of Penck     | Aurignacian  |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | _Interglacial_ =3=     |  Mousterian  | Acheulean  |   Palaeoliths   |
+  | = Riss-Würm interval   |    Upper     |            |     of the      |
+  | (Penck)                |  Acheulean   |            | "modern-valley" |
+  |                        |              |            |      type.      |
+  |                        |              |            | Valley-gravels  |
+  |                        |              |            |   of present    |
+  |                        |              |            | Ouse, Cam, etc. |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial III= 1st      |    Lower     | [Chalky    | Purple          |
+  | Pleistocene Glaciation |  Acheulean   |Boulder-clay| Boulder-clay    |
+  | of Boule. "Rissian"    |   Chellean   |  of Hoxne] |                 |
+  | of Penck               |              |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | _Interglacial_ =2=     |  Strépyan    |     ?      | Palaeoliths of  |
+  | = Mindel-Riss interval |  Mesvinian   |            |"ancient-valley" |
+  | (Penck)                |  Mafflean    |            |      type.      |
+  |                        |              |            | ?Flood-gravels. |
+  |                        |              |            | Valleys do not  |
+  |                        |              |            |  correspond to  |
+  |                        |              |            |  modern river   |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial II=           |      --      |     ?      |     Chalky      |
+  | "Mindelian" of Penck   |              |            |   Boulder-clay  |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | _Interglacial_ =1=     |      --      |     ?      |  Brandon beds   |
+  | = Günz-Mindel interval |              |            | with implements |
+  | (Penck)                |              |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial I= "Günzian"  |      --      |     ?      |   Cromer Till.  |
+  | of Penck               |              |            |    Later than   |
+  |                        |              |            |    Forest-Bed   |
+  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
+
+  [1] Penck postulates four glaciations, all "pleistocene."
+
+  [2] Boule recognises two pleistocene glaciations (seemingly Nos. III
+      and IV of Penck), and one pliocene glaciation. The latter is not
+      indicated in the Table.
+
+  [3] Skertchley's scheme is now ignored, if not abandoned, by the best
+      authorities. It has been introduced here on account of its
+      historical interest only. Its correlation with the other schemes is
+      speculative.
+
+  [4] The differences between the rival schemes of Boule, Penck and
+      Hoernes are best realised by comparing the position assigned to the
+      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.
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44331-8.txt or 44331-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/3/3/44331/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/44331-8.zip b/old/44331-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e29b900
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-8.zip
diff --git a/old/44331-h.zip b/old/44331-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e06a4d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h.zip
diff --git a/old/44331-h/44331-h.htm b/old/44331-h/44331-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df1c10b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/44331-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,6841 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth.
+    </title>
+    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
+    <style type="text/css">
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+}
+
+   h1 {text-align: center;
+       margin-top: 2em;
+       margin-bottom: 2em;
+       font-weight: bold;
+       font-size: 2em;
+       clear: both;
+      }
+
+   h2 {text-align: center;
+       margin-top: 1em;
+       margin-bottom: 1em;
+       font-size: 1.5em;
+       clear: both;
+      }
+
+   h3 {text-align: center;
+       margin-top: 1em;
+       margin-bottom: 0.5em;
+       font-size: 1.25em;
+       clear: both;
+      }
+
+p {margin-top: .51em;
+    text-align: justify;
+    margin-bottom: .49em;
+    text-indent: 1em;
+  }
+
+   p.title {text-align: center;
+            text-indent: 0;
+            line-height: 1.4em;
+            margin-bottom: 2em;
+            }
+
+  hr.hr65 {width: 65%;
+	   margin-top: 2em;
+	   margin-bottom: 2em;
+           margin-left: auto;
+           margin-right: auto;
+           clear: both;
+       }
+
+  hr.hr95 {width: 95%;
+	   margin-top: 2em;
+	   margin-bottom: 2em;
+           margin-left: auto;
+           margin-right: auto;
+           clear: both;
+       }
+
+   div.note {border: black 1px dashed;
+             padding: 0.5em;
+             }
+
+table {margin-top: 0.5em;
+       margin-left: auto;
+       margin-right: auto;
+       }
+  .bblt       {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-left: solid black 1px; border-top: solid black 1px;}
+
+  .bblr       {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; border-top: solid black 1px;}
+
+    table#p20 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
+
+    table#p20 td.td1 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p20 td.td2 {text-align: left;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td1 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td2 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td3 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td4 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td5 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td6 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td7 {text-align: left;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p84 td.td8 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td1 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td2 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td3 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td4 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td5 {text-align: left;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td6 {text-align: left;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td7 {text-align: left;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td8 {text-align: left;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p97 td.td9 {text-align: left;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td1 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td2 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 3px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td3 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td4 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 3px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td5 {text-align: left;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td6 {text-align: right;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td7 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td8 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 3px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td9 {text-align: center;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td10 {text-align: center;
+                       border-left: 1px solid black;
+                       border-right: 1px solid black;
+                       border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td11 {text-align: center;
+                       border-left: 3px solid black;
+                       border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p100 td.td12 {text-align: center;
+                       border-left: 1px solid black;
+                       border-right: 1px solid black;}
+    table#p100 td.td13 {text-align: right;
+                       border-bottom: 1px solid black}
+
+    table#p118 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td1 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td2 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td3 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-top: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td4 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td5 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td6 {text-align: left;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td7 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-bottom: 3px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td8 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td9 {text-align: center;
+                      border-left: 1px solid black;
+                      border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td10 {text-align: center;
+                       border-left: 3px solid black;
+                       border-bottom: 3px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td11 {text-align: center;
+                       border-left: 3px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td12 {text-align: left;
+                       border-left: 1px solid black;
+                       border-right: 1px solid black;}
+
+    table#p118 td.td13 {text-align: left;
+                       border-left: 1px solid black;
+                       border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
+
+    .tdl      {text-align: left;}
+    .tdr      {text-align: right;}
+    .tdc      {text-align: center;}
+
+.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+    /*visibility: hidden;*/
+    position: absolute;
+    left: 92%;
+    font-size: smaller;
+    text-align: right;}
+
+.blockquot {
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;}
+
+.center   {text-align: center;}
+
+.right   {text-align: right;}
+
+.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+
+.u        {text-decoration: underline;}
+
+.caption  {font-weight: bold;
+           text-align: center;}
+
+  ul {list-style-type: none;
+      font-size: 1em;}
+
+/* Images */
+.figcenter   {
+    margin: auto;
+    text-align: center;}
+
+/* Footnotes */
+
+.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+
+.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+
+.fnanchor {
+    vertical-align: super;
+    font-size: .8em;
+    text-decoration:
+    none;}
+
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Prehistoric Man
+
+Author: W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+Release Date: December 1, 2013 [EBook #44331]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<p class="title"><span style="font-size: 125%">The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature</span></p>
+
+<h1>PREHISTORIC MAN</h1>
+
+<p class="title"><span style="font-size: 125%">CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS</span><br />
+<span style="font-size: 125%">London: FETTER LANE, E.C.</span><br />
+<span style="font-size: 125%">C. F. CLAY, <span class="smcap">Manager</span></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_ii.jpg" width="263" height="274"
+        alt="illustration"
+        title="illustration" />
+</div>
+
+<p class="title">London: H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET, W.C.<br />
+WILLIAM WESLEY &amp; SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND<br />
+Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.<br />
+Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS<br />
+New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS<br />
+Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., <span class="smcap">Ltd.</span><br /><br /><br />
+All rights reserved</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_iii.jpg" width="515" height="800"
+        alt="front_page"
+        title="front_page" />
+</div>
+
+<p class="title"><i>First Edition</i>, 1912<br />
+<i>Second Edition</i>, 1912</p>
+
+<p><i>With the exception of the coat of arms at
+the foot, the design on the title page is a
+reproduction of one used by the earliest known
+Cambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521</i></p>
+
+<hr class="hr95" />
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>PREFACE</h2>
+
+<p>This book deals with the earliest phases in the
+past history of Mankind: the selected period
+ends at the Aurignacian division of the Palaeolithic
+Age. I regret to be unable to affix definite dates in
+years to the several divisions of time now recognised.
+To illustrate the difficulty of forming conclusions on
+this subject, it should be noted that in 1904 Professor
+Rutot (p. 103) assigned a duration of 139,000 years to
+the Pleistocene period, while in 1909 Dr Sturge
+claimed 700,000 years for a portion only of the same
+period. Evidently the present tendency is to increase
+enormously the drafts on geological time, and to
+measure in millions the years that have elapsed since
+the first traces of human existence were deposited.</p>
+
+<p>But in the face of estimates which differ so widely,
+it seemed preferable to distinguish subdivisions of
+time by reference to animal-types or the forms of
+stone-implements, rather than by the lapse of years.</p>
+
+<p>In the attempt to summarise a considerable
+amount of evidence, I have tried to select the facts
+most relevant to the subject in hand. And where an
+opinion is expressed I have endeavoured to indicate
+the reasons for the decision that is adopted.</p>
+
+<p>Additional evidence is pouring in at the present
+time, and there is no doubt but that the next few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span>
+years will witness great extensions of knowledge. In
+this connection, I take the opportunity of mentioning
+the discovery made a few weeks ago by M. Henri
+Martin at La Quina, of a human skeleton resembling
+the Neanderthal type but presenting (it is said)
+definite features of inferiority to that type. Another
+subject of vast importance is Mr Moir's recent
+demonstration (p. 106) of elaborately worked implements
+resting beneath strata referred to the Pliocene
+period.</p>
+
+<p>For the loan of blocks, or for permission to
+reproduce illustrations, my cordial thanks are due to
+the editors and publishers of the journals mentioned
+in the following list. The authors' names are appended
+to the several illustrations.</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot">
+Anatomischer Anzeiger,<br />
+Archiv für Anthropologie,<br />
+Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia,<br />
+Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns,<br />
+Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft,<br />
+L'Anthropologie,<br />
+Royal Dublin Society,<br />
+Royal Society of Edinburgh,<br />
+Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.
+</div>
+
+<p style="margin-left: 60%;">W. L. H. DUCKWORTH</p>
+
+<p style="margin-left: 10%; text-indent: 0;"><i>December</i> 11, 1911</p>
+
+<hr class="hr95" />
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CONTENTS</h2>
+
+<table summary="TOC">
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">CHAP.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+    <td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">I.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">The Precursors of Palaeolithic Man</td>
+    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">II.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Palaeolithic Man</td>
+    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">III.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Alluvial Deposits and Caves</td>
+    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">IV.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Associated Animals and Implements</td>
+    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">V.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Human Fossils and Geological Chronology</td>
+    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_112">112</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">VI.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Human Evolution in the light of recent research</td>
+    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table summary="tables">
+<tr>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td class="tdc">Table</td>
+    <td class="tdl">A<span style="margin-left: 150px;"><i>to</i></span></td>
+    <td class="tdc"><i>face</i></td>
+    <td class="tdc"><i>p.</i></td>
+    <td class="tdr">85</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+    <td class="tdl">B<span style="margin-left: 150px;"><i>to</i></span></td>
+    <td class="tdc"><i>&bdquo;</i></td>
+    <td class="tdc"><i>&bdquo;</i></td>
+    <td class="tdr">118</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class="hr65" />
+
+<h2>LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS</h2>
+
+<table summary="TOC">
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">FIG.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">&nbsp;</td>
+    <td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">1.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc. (From Dubois)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_1.jpg">5</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">2.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of Jawbones, (A) Mauer (B) ancient Briton</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_2.jpg">11</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">3.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Tooth from Taubach: surface of crown. (From Nehring)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_3.jpg">22</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">4.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Tooth of Chimpanzee. (From Nehring)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_3.jpg">22</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdc">5, 6.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Tooth from Taubach: inner and outer sides. (From Nehring)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_5.jpg">23</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">7.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_7.jpg">25</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">8.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Tracings of teeth from Krapina and Mauer. (From Kramberger)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_8.jpg">29</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">9.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Human skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Birkner)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_9.jpg">33</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">10.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints etc. (From Boule)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_10.jpg">35</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">11.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Contours of skulls, (A) New Guinea man (B) European woman</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_11.jpg">36</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">12.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracing of human skull from Le Moustier</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_12.jpg">40</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">13.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer and Le Moustier</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_13.jpg">41</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">14.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer, La Naulette, etc. (From Frizzi)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_14.jpg">42</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">15.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of jawbones, (A) ancient Briton (B) Le Moustier (C) Mauer</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_15.jpg">43</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">16.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of the Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar) skull. (From Sera)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_16.jpg">48</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">17.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Human skull of the Grimaldi-type. (From Birkner)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_17.jpg">51</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">18.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skulls from Galley Hill etc. (From Klaatsch)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_18.jpg">58</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">19.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. (From Dubois)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_19.jpg">64</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">20.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">View of the Mauer sand-pit. (From Birkner)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_20.jpg">65</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">21.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. (From Birkner)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_21.jpg">69</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">22.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Boule)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_22.jpg">72</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">23.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Boule)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_23.jpg">77</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">24.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene time. (From Penck)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_24.jpg">107</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">25.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Chart of oscillations of snow-level in the Glacial period. (From Penck)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">26.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc. (From Dubois)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_26.jpg">129</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">27.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Position of Palaeolithic Man in the scale of evolution. (From Cross)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_27.jpg">131</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">28.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">Thigh-bones arranged to illustrate Klaatsch's theory.</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_28.jpg">136</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="tdr">29.</td>
+    <td class="tdl">The human skeleton found beneath the Boulder-clay at Ipswich.
+(From a drawing by Dr Keith, reproduced with permission)</td>
+    <td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_29.jpg">153</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr class="hr95" />
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CHAPTER I<br />
+<span style="font-size: 80%;">THE PRECURSORS OF PALAEOLITHIC MAN</span></h2>
+
+<p>Our knowledge of prehistoric man is based naturally
+upon the study of certain parts of the human
+skeleton preserved in a fossil state. In addition to
+these materials, other evidence is available in the
+form of certain products of human industry. These
+include such objects as implements of various kinds,
+owing their preservation to the almost indestructible
+nature of their material, or again artistic representations,
+whether pictorial or glyptic.</p>
+
+<p>The evidence of the bones themselves will be considered
+first, partly for convenience and partly in
+view of the cogency possessed by actual remains of
+the human frame. Other branches of the subject
+will come under review afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>Of all the discoveries of ancient remains, whether
+possibly or certainly human, two in particular stand out
+pre-eminently in marked relief. The specimens thus
+distinguished are known as the remains of <i>Pithecanthropus
+erectus</i>, on the one hand, and on the other
+a jaw-bone which is attributed to a human type described
+(from the locality of the discovery) as <i>Homo
+heidelbergensis</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The geological antiquity assigned in each instance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span>
+is greater than that claimed for any bones acknowledged
+unreservedly to be human.</p>
+
+<p>It is thus clear that a high value attaches to these
+specimens if they be regarded as documents testifying
+to the course of human evolution. When the bones
+are examined, the contrast they provide with all
+human remains is so marked as to emphasise at once
+the necessity for a thorough and critical examination
+of their structure.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Pithecanthropus erectus.</i></h3>
+
+<p>In the case of these bones, the facts are now so
+widely known and so easily accessible as to render
+unnecessary any detailed exposition here. The
+discoveries were made in the years 1891 and 1892
+by Professor Dubois<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>, who was engaged at the
+time on an investigation of the remains of various
+animals found embedded in a river-bank in Java.
+As is well known, the actual remains are scanty.
+They comprise the upper part of a skull, part of a
+lower jaw (which has never been described), three
+teeth, and a left thigh-bone.</p>
+
+<p>[1] The numbers refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume.</p>
+
+<p>Before entering upon any criticism of the results
+of Professor Dubois' studies, it is convenient to give
+a general statement of his conclusions. Here we
+find described a creature of Pliocene age, presenting
+a form so extraordinary as hardly to be considered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span>
+human, placed so it seems between the human and
+simian tribes. It is Caliban, a missing link,&mdash;in
+fact a Pithecanthropus.</p>
+
+<p>With the erect attitude and a stature surpassing
+that of many modern men were combined the heavy
+brows and narrow forehead of a flattened skull,
+containing little more than half the weight of brain
+possessed by an average European. The molar teeth
+were large with stout and divergent roots.</p>
+
+<p>The arguments founded upon the joint consideration
+of the length of the thigh-bone and the capacity
+of the skull are of the highest interest. For the former
+dimension provides a means of estimating approximately
+the body-weight, while the capacity gives
+an indication of the brain-weight. The body-weight
+is asserted to have been about 70 kgm. (eleven stone)
+and the brain-weight about 750 gm. And the ratio
+of the two weights is approximately <sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>94</sub>. The
+corresponding ratios for a large anthropoid ape
+(Orang-utan) and for man are given in the table
+following, thus:</p>
+
+<table summary="pg3">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Orang-utan</td>
+  <td class="tdc"><sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>183</sub></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i></td>
+  <td class="tdc"><sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>94</sub></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Man</td>
+  <td class="tdc"><sup>1</sup>&#8260;<sub>51</sub></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The intermediate position of the Javanese fossil is
+clearly revealed.</p>
+
+<p>The same sequence is shewn by a series of tracings
+representative of the cranial arc in the middle line<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>
+of the head (Fig. 1). And the results of many tests
+of this kind, applied not only by Professor Dubois
+but also by Professor Schwalbe, are confirmatory
+of the &lsquo;intermediate&rsquo; position claimed for <i>Pithecanthropus
+erectus</i>. The molar teeth are of inadequate
+size if the skull-cap is that of an ape, whereas they
+are slightly larger than the corresponding teeth
+furnished by primitive existing human types. And now
+some of the objections to this account may be taken.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, the claim to Pliocene antiquity
+is contested. So keen an interest was excited by
+Professor Dubois' discovery that more than one
+expedition has been dispatched to survey and review
+the ground. It is now declared in certain quarters
+that the horizon is lower Quaternary: I do not know
+that any attempt has been made to reduce the age
+of the strata further. As the matter stands, the
+difference is not very material, but Professor Dubois
+refuses to accept the revised estimate and still adheres
+to his own determination. Incidentally the more
+recent work (Blanckenhorn<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>, 1910) has resulted in the
+discovery of a tooth claimed as definitely human (this
+is not the case with the teeth of <i>Pithecanthropus
+erectus</i>), and yet of an antiquity surpassing that of
+the remains found by Professor Dubois. The latter
+appears unconvinced as to the genuineness of the find,
+but no doubt the case will be fully discussed in publications
+now in the course of preparation.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_1.jpg" width="600" height="417"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_1.jpg" id="img_1.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 1. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a common dimension, viz. the
+line <i>Gl&mdash;Op</i>, representing a base-line of the brain-case. <i>Pe</i>, Pithecanthropus.
+<i>Papua</i>, a New Guinea native. <i>Hl</i>, <i>Sm</i>, <i>At</i> are from skulls of monkeys. (After
+Dubois.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Professor Dubois assigned the bones to one and
+the same skeleton, and for this he has been severely
+criticised. Apart from arguments affecting the
+geological age of the specimens, the question of
+their forming part of a single individual is very
+momentous. For if two skeletons are represented,
+one may be human, while the other is that of an ape.
+It is admitted that the larger bones were separated
+by a distance of forty-six feet. By way of meeting
+this criticism, it is submitted that the distance is
+by no means so great as to preclude the possibility
+of the common and identical origin of the various
+bones. Moreover it is at least curious that if two
+skeletons are here represented, no further remains
+should have been detected in the immediate vicinity.</p>
+
+<p>The fact that the thigh-bone might easily have
+passed as that of a man, while the skull-fragment is
+so divergent from all modern forms as to be scarcely
+human, is of great interest. The contrast between
+the indications provided by the two bones was remarked
+at once. Some writers, rejecting certain other
+evidence on the point, then drew the inference that
+the human thigh-bone had been evolved and had
+arrived at the distinctive human condition in advance
+of the skull. The importance of this conclusion lies
+in the fact that the human thigh-bone bears indications
+of an erect attitude, while the form of the
+skull gives guidance as to the size of the brain, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span>
+consequently to some extent provides a clue to the
+mental endowment of the individual. Whether the
+erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development
+was first obtained by man has been debated for many
+years. In this case, the evidence was taken to shew that
+the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means
+of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth
+the upper limb was emancipated entirely from
+its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation
+followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from
+their use as organs of prehension. Simultaneously
+the mechanism whereby the head is attached to the
+neck and trunk became profoundly modified. This
+alteration gave to the brain an opportunity of growth
+and increase previously denied, but now seized, with
+the consequent accession of intellectual activity so
+characteristic of the Hominidae.</p>
+
+<p>The story thus expounded is attractive from
+several points of view. But while possessing the
+support of the Javan fossil remains, it is not confirmed
+in the embryonic history of Man, for there
+the growth of the brain is by far the most distinctive
+feature. Nor did those who adopted this opinion
+(in 1896), take into account all the characters of the
+ancient human remains even then available. For
+the evidence of those remains points to an order
+exactly the reverse of that just stated, and it indicates
+the early acquisition of a large and presumably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>
+active brain. And now that additions have been lately
+made to those older remains (other than the Javan
+bones), the same &lsquo;reversed&rsquo; order seems to be confirmed.
+On the whole therefore, the soundest conclusion
+is that following a preliminary increment of
+brain-material, the erect attitude came as a further
+evolutionary advance.</p>
+
+<p>But to return from this digression to the objections
+against the <i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i>, it must now be
+explained that the very contrast between the thigh-bone
+and the skull-cap in respect of these inferences,
+has been used as an argument against the association
+of these bones as part of one skeleton.</p>
+
+<p>The objection may be met in two ways at least.
+For instance, the thigh-bone may yet possess characters
+which lessen its resemblance to those of recent
+men, but are not recognised on a superficial inspection.
+Careful investigation of the thigh-bone seems to shew
+that such indeed is the case (indeed the human
+characters are by some absolutely denied). But
+together with this result comes the discovery that the
+characters of straightness and slenderness in the shaft
+of the bone from which the inference as to the erect
+attitude was largely drawn, do not give trustworthy
+evidence upon this point. In fact, a human thigh-bone
+may be much less straight and less slender than that
+of arboreal animals such as the Gibbon, the Cebus
+monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycticebus). The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>
+famous Eppelsheim femur is straighter than, and as
+slender as that of Pithecanthropus. It was regarded
+at first as that of a young woman, but is now ascribed
+to an anthropoid ape. And in fact, even if the skull-cap
+and thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus should be
+retained in association, it seems that the title
+&lsquo;erectus&rsquo; is not fully justified.</p>
+
+<p>Another method of rebutting the objection is
+based on the suggestion that Pithecanthropus is not
+a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to describe
+an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in
+palaeontology, and it was treated leniently by Huxley.
+To my mind this position can be adopted without
+materially depreciating the value of the evidence
+yielded by the conjoint remains, provided only that
+their original association be acknowledged. Should
+this assumption be granted, the claims put forward
+on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem
+to be justified. On the other hand, should the
+association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be rejected,
+the former has not lost all claim to the same position.
+For the most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>
+of Strassburg, and the further elaboration of these
+by Professor Berry<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> and Mr Cross<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> of Melbourne,
+support Professor Dubois' view. And though the
+objections may not have been finally disposed of,
+a review of the literature called forth by Professor
+Dubois' publications will shew a slight margin of
+evidence for, rather than against his view.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><i>The Heidelberg or Mauer Jaw</i><a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>.</h3>
+
+<p>Professor Dubois' Javanese researches were carried
+out in the years 1891 and 1892. Fifteen years
+separate the discovery of the <i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i>
+from that of the second great find mentioned in the
+introductory paragraph of this chapter. This period
+was by no means barren in respect of other additions
+to the list of human fossils. But the other results
+(including even the finds at Taubach) are regarded
+as of subsidiary importance, so that their consideration
+will be deferred for the present. In 1907 a lower
+jaw, known now as the Heidelberg or Mauer jaw, was
+discovered by workmen in the sand-pit of Mauer near
+Heidelberg.</p>
+
+<p>The Mauer jaw is indeed a most remarkable
+specimen. The first general outcome of an inspection
+of the photographs or of the excellent casts (which may
+now be seen in many museums) is a profound impression
+of its enormous strength (Figs. 2, 13, and 15<i>c</i>). By every
+part of the specimen save one, this impression is confirmed.
+This massiveness, together with the complete
+absence of any prominence at the chin, would have
+caused great hesitation in regard to the pronouncement
+of a decision as to the probable nature of the fossil.
+The one paradoxical feature is the relatively small size
+of the teeth. All of these have been preserved, though<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span>
+on the left side the crowns of four have been removed
+by accident in the process of clearing away some
+adherent earth and pebbles. The net result shews
+that the teeth are actually within the range of variation
+provided by human beings of races still extant,
+though commonly regarded as &lsquo;primitive,&rsquo; if not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span>
+pithecoid (such as the aboriginal race of Australia).
+Yet these teeth are implanted in a jaw of such size
+and strength as render difficult the reference of the
+specimen to a human being.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_2.jpg" width="440" height="600"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_2.jpg" id="img_2.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 2. <i>A</i> outline tracing of a cast of the Mauer Jawbone. <i>B</i> a
+similar tracing from an unusually large jaw of an ancient Briton.
+(From specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The most striking features of the Mauer jaw have
+been mentioned already. Before entering upon a
+further discussion of its probable nature, it will be
+well to note some of the other distinctive characters.
+Thus the portion Fig. 2 (<i>a</i>) known technically as the
+ascending ramus is of great size, and particularly wide,
+surpassing all known human specimens in this respect.
+The upper margin of this part is very slightly
+excavated, a slight depression (<i>b</i>) replacing the very
+definite &lsquo;sigmoid&rsquo; notch found in almost all human
+jaws (though the relative shallowness of this notch
+has been long recognised as distinctive of the lowest
+human types). The difference in vertical height
+between the uppermost points of the condyle (<i>c</i>) and
+the coronoid process (<i>d</i>) is therefore unusually small.
+On the other hand, the lower margin of the bone is
+undulating, so that it presents a hollow on each side,
+as well as one near the middle line in front. The
+two halves of the bone are definitely inclined to one
+another and this convergence is faintly marked in the
+two rows of teeth behind the canines. The latter
+teeth do not project markedly above the level of
+those adjacent to them. The incisor teeth are
+remarkably curved in their long axes, with a convexity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>
+in front. The prominences called &lsquo;genial tubercles&rsquo;
+behind the chin are replaced by a shallow pit or
+fossa.</p>
+
+<p>In one sense the reception accorded by palaeontologists
+to the fossil jaw of Mauer differs remarkably
+from most of the comparable instances. That
+difference consists in the comparative absence of
+controversy excited by its discovery. This must not be
+ascribed to any lack of ardour on the part of archaeologists.
+More probable is it that with the lapse of
+time, the acceptance of an evolutionary interpretation
+of the origin of man has gained a wider circle of
+adherents, so that the claims of even so sensational a
+specimen as this, are sifted and investigated with a
+judicial calm much more appropriate and certainly
+more dignified than the fierce outbursts occasioned by
+some of the earlier discoveries.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to institute brief anatomical comparisons
+between the Mauer jaw and those of the highest
+apes on the one hand, and of the most primitive of
+human beings on the other.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>a</i>) Of the three larger anthropoid apes available
+for comparison, it is hard to say which presents the
+closest similarity. The Gibbons do not appear to
+approach so nearly as these larger forms. Among
+the latter, no small range of individual variations
+occurs. My own comparisons shew that of the
+material at my disposal the mandible of an Orang-utan<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span>
+comes nearest to the Mauer jaw. But other
+mandibles of the same kind of ape (Orang-utan) are
+very different. The chief difficulty in assigning the
+possessor of the Mauer jaw to a pithecoid stock
+has been mentioned already. It consists in the
+inadequate size of the teeth. In addition to this,
+other evidence comes from the results of an examination
+of the grinding surfaces (crowns) of the molar teeth.
+These resemble teeth of the more primitive human
+types rather than those of apes. Finally the convergence
+of the two rows when traced towards the canine
+or eye-tooth of each side, points in the same direction.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>b</i>) If the apes be thus rejected, the next question
+is, Would the Mauer jaw be appropriate to such a
+cranium as that of Pithecanthropus? I believe an
+affirmative answer is justifiable. It is true that an
+excellent authority (Keith<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>) hesitates on the ground
+that the mandible seems too massive for the skull,
+though the same writer recognises that, in regard to
+the teeth, the comparison is apt. This is a difficult
+point. For instance the <i>H. moust. hauseri</i> (cf.
+<a href="#Chapter_II">Chapter II</a>) has a mandible which is far &lsquo;lower&rsquo; than
+the capacity of the brain-case would lead one to
+expect. Therefore it seems that the degree of correlation
+between mandible and capacity is small, and to
+predict the size of the brain from evidence given by
+the jaw is not always safe. It is to be remembered
+that special stress was laid by Professor Dubois<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>
+(cf. p. 4) on the fact that the teeth of Pithecanthropus
+when compared with the skull-cap are inadequately
+small, if judged by the ape-standard of proportion.
+The characters of the teeth, in so far as upper and
+lower molars can be compared, present no obstacle
+to such an association, and in fact provide some
+additional evidence in its favour. The crucial point
+seems therefore to be the massiveness of the jaw.
+With regard to this, the following remarks may be
+made. First, that the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus
+is on all sides admitted to shew provision for powerful
+jaw-muscles. And further, in respect of actual
+measurements, the comparison of the transverse width
+of the Javanese skull-cap with that of the Mauer jaw
+is instructive. For the skull-cap measures 130 mm.
+in extreme width, the jaw 130 mm. The association
+of the two does not, in my opinion, make an extravagant
+demand on the variability in size of either part.
+A curious comparison may be instituted between the
+Mauer jaw and the corresponding bone as represented
+by Professor Manouvrier (cf. Dubois<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>, 1896) in an
+attempted reconstruction of the whole skull of Pithecanthropus.
+Professor Manouvrier's forecast of the
+jaw differs from the Mauer specimen chiefly in regard
+to the size of the teeth, and the stoutness of the
+ascending ramus. The teeth are larger and the
+ascending ramus is more slender in the reconstruction
+than in the Mauer specimen.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>(<i>c</i>) Passing from the consideration of Pithecanthropus
+to that of human beings, the general results
+of the comparisons that can be made will shew that
+the gap separating the jaw of Mauer from all modern
+human representatives is filled by human jaws of
+great prehistoric antiquity.</p>
+
+<p>The progress of an evolutionary development is
+accordingly well-illustrated by these specimens. And
+although <i>Homo heidelbergensis</i> is seen to be separated
+from his modern successors by great differences
+in form as well as a vast lapse of time, still the
+intervening period does provide intermediate forms
+to bridge the gulf. Not the least interesting of many
+reflections conjured up by the Mauer jaw, is that this
+extraordinary form should be met with in a latitude
+so far north of that corresponding to the Javanese
+discoveries. This difference, together with that of
+longitude, suggests an immense range of distribution
+of these ancestral types. Some of their successors
+are considered in the next chapter.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2><a name="Chapter_II" id="Chapter_II">CHAPTER II</a><br />
+<span style="font-size: 80%;">PALAEOLITHIC MAN</span></h2>
+
+<p>The fossil remains described in the preceding
+chapter possess good claims to that most interesting
+position, viz. an intermediate one between Mankind
+and the more highly-developed of the Apes.</p>
+
+<p>From such remarkable claimants we turn to
+consider fossil bones of undoubted human nature.
+Of such examples some have been regarded as
+differing from all other human types to such an
+extent as to justify their segregation in a distinct
+species or even genus. Yet even were such separation
+fully justified, they are still indubitably human.</p>
+
+<p>In the early phases of the study of prehistoric
+archaeology, the distinction of a &lsquo;stone age&rsquo; from
+those of metals was soon realised. Credit is due
+to the present Lord Avebury<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> for the subdivision of
+that period into the earlier and later parts known as
+the Palaeolithic and Neolithic stages. At first, those
+subdivisions possessed no connotation of anatomical
+or ethnical significance. But as research progressed,
+the existence of a representative human type specially
+characteristic of the palaeolithic period passed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span>
+from the stage of surmise to that of certainty. Yet,
+although characteristic, this type is not the only one
+recognisable in those early days.</p>
+
+<p>In the following pages, some account is given
+of the most recent discoveries of human remains to
+which Palaeolithic antiquity can undoubtedly be
+assigned. The very numerous works relating to
+prehistoric man are full of discussions of such
+specimens as those found in the Neanderthal, at Spy,
+Engis, Malarnaud, La Naulette or Denise.</p>
+
+<p>That some of these examples are of great antiquity
+is inferred from the circumstances under which they
+were discovered. The evidence relates either to their
+association with extinct animals such as the Mammoth,
+or again the bones may have been found at great
+depths from the surface, in strata judged to have
+been undisturbed since the remains were deposited.
+One of the earliest discoveries was that of the Engis
+skull; the differences separating this skull from those
+of modern Europeans are so extraordinarily slight
+that doubt has been expressed as to the antiquity
+assigned to the specimen, and indeed this doubt has
+not been finally dispelled. The bones from Denise
+(now rehabilitated in respect of their antiquity by
+Professor Boule) present similar features. But on
+the other hand the jaws found at La Naulette and
+Malarnaud suggest the former existence of a lowlier
+and more bestial form of humanity. Support is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>
+provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but
+in regard to the latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct
+from presumption) is unfortunately lacking. Further
+confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry skull
+from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that
+of the Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk
+and Sir William Turner<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> as long ago as 1864, the
+specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in that
+of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the
+geological or archaeological horizon is lamentably
+defective. After a lapse of some twenty years, the
+discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium,
+undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of
+Mammoth, threw a flood of light on the subject, and
+enormously enhanced the significance of the earlier
+discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a
+human type, different from all other known inhabitants
+of that continent, and presenting no small
+resemblance to the lowliest modern representatives of
+mankind, may be said to have been finally established
+by the results of the excavations at Spy. Moreover
+the differences thus recognised are such as to lend
+strong support to the evolutionary view as to the
+origin of the more recent human stocks from an
+ancestral series including representatives of a simian
+phase. Yet the co-existence of a higher type represented
+by the Engis skull must not be overlooked,
+nor indeed has this been the case. The significance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span>
+of so remarkable a phenomenon is more fully
+discussed in the sequel; but no detailed account of
+the earlier discoveries need be given. A bibliography
+is appended and here references (H&oelig;rnes[44], 1908;
+Schwalbe[55]) will be found to the more important
+sources of information upon those specimens.</p>
+
+<table id="p20" cellpadding="5" summary="references">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc"><i>Locality</i></td>
+  <td class="td1"><i>Date</i></td>
+  <td class="td1"><i>Literary reference</i></td>
+  <td class="td1"><i>Synonyms</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Taubach</td>
+  <td class="td1">1895</td>
+  <td class="td2">Nehring<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Krapina</td>
+  <td class="td1">1899</td>
+  <td class="td2">Kramberger<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">S. Brélade</td>
+  <td class="td1">1910-11</td>
+  <td class="td2">Marett<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">La Chapelle aux Saints</td>
+  <td class="td1">1908</td>
+  <td class="td2">MarettBoule<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&ldquo;Corrèze&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Le Moustier</td>
+  <td class="td1">1908</td>
+  <td class="td2">Klaatsch<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&ldquo;Homo mousterensis hauseri&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">La Ferrassie</td>
+  <td class="td1">1909</td>
+  <td class="td2">Peyrony<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Pech de l'Aze</td>
+  <td class="td1">1909</td>
+  <td class="td2">Peyrony<a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Forbes Quarry</td>
+  <td class="td1">1848-1909</td>
+  <td class="td2">Sollas<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> Sera<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&ldquo;Gibraltar&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Andalusia</td>
+  <td class="td1">1910</td>
+  <td class="td2">Verner<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Grotte des Enfants</td>
+  <td class="td1">1902-06</td>
+  <td class="td2">Verneau<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&ldquo;Grimaldi&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Baradero</td>
+  <td class="td1">1887</td>
+  <td class="td2">(S. Roth) Lehmann-Nitsche (1907)<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Monte Hermoso</td>
+  <td class="td1">?</td>
+  <td class="td2">Lehmann-Nitsche (1909)<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">Homo neogaeus&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Combe Capelle</td>
+  <td class="td1">1909</td>
+  <td class="td2">Klaatsch<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&ldquo;Homo aurignacensis hauseri&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Galley Hill</td>
+  <td class="td1">1895</td>
+  <td class="td2">Newton<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2">&ldquo;Homo fossilis&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In the present instance, an attempt will be made
+to provide some account of the most recent advances
+gained through the results of excavations carried out
+in late years. And herein, prominence will be given
+in the first place to such human remains as are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>
+assignable to the lowlier human type represented
+previously by the Spy skeletons. Following upon
+these, come examples possessing other characters and
+therefore not referable to the same type.</p>
+
+<p>The discoveries are commonly designated by the
+name of the locality in which they were made. Those
+selected for particular mention are enumerated in
+the list on p. 20.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Taubach in Saxe-Weimar.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Certain specimens discovered at Taubach and first
+described in 1895 possess an importance second only
+to that of the Mauer jaw and of the Javan bones
+found by Professor Dubois. Indeed there would be
+justification for associating the three localities in the
+present series of descriptions. But upon consideration,
+it was decided to bring the Taubach finds into the
+present place and group. It may be added that they
+are assigned to an epoch not very different from that
+represented by the Mauer strata whence the mandible
+was obtained.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_3.jpg" width="500" height="181"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_3.jpg" id="img_3.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 3. The grinding surface of the first right lower molar tooth
+from Taubach. The letters denote several small prominences
+called cusps.</p>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 4. The grinding surface of the corresponding tooth (cf. Fig. 3)
+of a Chimpanzee. (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are much enlarged.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The actual material consists only of two human
+teeth of the molar series. One is the first lower
+&lsquo;milk&rsquo; molar of the left side. This tooth exceeds
+most corresponding modern examples in its dimensions.
+In a large collection of modern teeth from
+Berlin no example provided dimensions so large.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>
+The surface is more worn than is usual in modern
+milk teeth of this kind. The second tooth (Fig. 3)
+is the first lower &lsquo;permanent&rsquo; molar of the left
+side. It bears five cusps. Neither this number of
+cusps, nor its absolute dimensions, confer distinction
+upon the tooth. Its chief claim to notice is based
+upon its relative narrowness from side to side. That
+narrowness (proportion of transverse to anteroposterior
+diameter), represented by the ratio 84.6:100,
+is present in a distinctly unusual and almost simian
+degree. In this character the Taubach tooth resembles
+the same tooth of the Chimpanzee (Fig. 4), to
+which it stands nearer than does the corresponding
+tooth of the Mauer jaw. The manner in which the
+worn surface of the tooth slopes downwards and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>
+forwards has been claimed as another simian
+character. In these respects, the Taubach tooth is
+among the most ape-like of human teeth (whether
+prehistoric or recent) as yet recorded, and in my
+opinion there is some difficulty in deciding whether
+this is the tooth of a human being or of a
+pithecoid human precursor. There is a very slight
+tendency (Figs. 5, 6) to concrescence of the roots,
+and these are curiously parallel in direction, when
+viewed from the side. In the latter respect no
+similarity to the teeth of apes can be recognised.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_5.jpg" width="500" height="437"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_5.jpg" id="img_5.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 5. Inner side of the Taubach tooth.]</p>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 6. Outer side of the same. (From Nehring.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><i>Krapina in Croatia.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Next in order to the discovery of human teeth at
+Taubach, the results of excavations in a so-called
+&lsquo;rock-shelter&rsquo; on the bank of the river Krapini[vc]a in
+Croatia, call for consideration. Immense numbers
+of bones were obtained, and the remains of a large
+number of human beings were found to be mingled
+with those of various animals. Apart from their
+abundance, the fragmentary character of the human
+bones is very remarkable. The discovery that one
+particular stratum in the cave consisted mainly of
+burnt human bones has suggested that some of the
+early inhabitants of the Krapina shelter practised
+cannibalism.</p>
+
+<p>Indeed this view is definitely adopted by Professor
+Kramberger, and he makes the suggestion that
+the remains include representatives of those who
+practised as well as those who suffered from this
+custom. Both young individuals and those of
+mature age are represented, but very aged persons
+have not been recognised.</p>
+
+<p>Turning to the details of the actual bones, the
+conclusion of outstanding interest is the recognition
+of further instances of the type of the Neanderthal
+and of Spy, the latter discovery being separated by
+a lapse of twenty years and more from that at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>
+Krapina. An attempt has been made to reconstruct
+one skull, and the result is shewn in Fig. 7, which
+provides a view of the specimen in profile. Viewed
+from above, the chief character is the width of
+the cranial portion, which exceeds very distinctly
+in this respect the corresponding diameter in the
+more classic examples from the Neanderthal and
+Spy. It is very important to note that the brain-case
+is thus shewn to be remarkably capacious,
+and this is all the more remarkable since the limb-bones
+do not denote a very great stature or bulk.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_7.jpg" width="500" height="332"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_7.jpg" id="img_7.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 7. Profile view of a reconstructed human skull from
+Krapina. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Having recently examined the specimens now in
+the Museum of Palaeontology at Agram in Croatia,
+I venture to add some notes made on that occasion.
+The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span>
+femur are certainly most impressive. It is shewn
+that early palaeolithic man presents examples of
+skulls both of brachy-cephalic and dolicho-cephalic
+proportions. Variations in the form and arrangement
+of the facial bones also occur.</p>
+
+<p>The form and proportions of the brain-case have
+been noted already. The profile view (cf. <a href="#img_7.jpg">Fig. 7</a>)
+shews the distinctive features of the brow region.
+The brow-ridges are very large, but they do not
+absolutely conform to the conditions presented by
+the corresponding parts in the skulls of aboriginal
+Australian or Tasmanian natives. The region of the
+forehead above the brows is in some instances (but
+not in all) flattened or retreating, and this feature
+is indicated even in some small fragments by the
+oblique direction of the lamina cribrosa of the
+ethmoid bone.</p>
+
+<p>Two types of upper jaw are distinguishable:
+no specimen projects forwards so far as might be
+expected, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards
+(as in some crania of aboriginal Australians).
+The facial surface of the jaw is not depressed to form
+a &lsquo;canine fossa.&rsquo; The nasal bones are flattened.</p>
+
+<p>The mandibles present further remarkable characters.
+By these again, two types have been rendered
+capable of distinction. In their massiveness they are
+unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In
+absolute width one specimen actually surpasses the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>
+Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival that bone in respect
+of the great width found to characterise the ascending
+ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the
+chin is absent or at best feebly developed. In one
+specimen the body of the jaw is bent at an angle
+between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is
+thus reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the
+incisor teeth the conformation is peculiar, again
+suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer
+jaw, and differing from that found in more recent
+human specimens.</p>
+
+<p>The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made
+in the following manner. The bone was placed on a
+flat surface. The vertical height of the tooth-bearing
+part was measured in two regions, (<i>a</i>) near the front,
+(<i>b</i>) further back, and close to the second molar tooth
+(cf. <a href="#img_2.jpg">Fig. 2</a><i>f</i>, <i>g</i>). In some of the bones these measurements
+are nearly equal, but the hinder one is
+always the less. In the instances in which the two
+measurements approximate to one another, the
+proportion is as 100:92. In other instances the
+corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being
+about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered
+by Professor Kramberger to indicate a special variety
+(krapinensis) of the Neanderthal or <i>Homo primigenius</i>
+type. The second type is that of the Spy
+mandible No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects
+to the distinction, urging that the indices (92 and 86)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>
+are not sufficiently contrasted. However this may be,
+it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences.
+Thus the curvature of the forehead is a variable
+feature, some skulls having had foreheads much flatter
+and more retreating than others. The limb bones
+are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of
+the arm-bones and thigh-bones are longer and more
+slender than others.</p>
+
+<p>How far these differences really penetrated and
+whether the thesis of two types can be fully sustained,
+does not appear to admit of a final answer.
+The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the
+distinction will be confirmed. But nevertheless I
+am far from supporting in all respects the view of
+Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe
+the suggestion of realistic tableaux depicting the
+murderous conflict of the two tribes at Krapina, the
+butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene
+of cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either
+variety or type found at Krapina can be reasonably
+identified with that of the Galley Hill skeleton. But
+of these matters further discussion is reserved for
+the sequel.</p>
+
+<hr class="hr65" />
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_8.jpg" width="500" height="439"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_8.jpg" id="img_8.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 8. Tracings (from skiagrams) of various molar teeth. The
+specimen <i>K.o.</i> from Krapina shews the conjoined roots characteristic
+of teeth found at Krapina, and in Jersey at S. Brélade's Bay.
+The large pulp-cavity of the Krapina teeth should be noted. <i>K.o.</i>,
+<i>K.C.</i>, <i>K.E.</i>, <i>K.G.</i>, from Krapina; <i>H.</i> Mauer. (From Kramberger.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>This brief sketch of the cranial characters of the
+Krapina remains must be supplemented by a note<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
+on the teeth. Great numbers were found, and some
+of them are of enormous dimensions, surpassing
+those of the Mauer jaw. But some of the molar
+teeth are further distinguished in a very remarkable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>
+way, for the roots supporting the crown of the tooth
+are conjoined or fused: they are not distinct or
+divergent as is usual. The contrast thus provided
+by these anomalous teeth is well illustrated in the
+accompanying figure (8, <i>Ko</i>). Now such fusion of
+roots is not absolutely unknown at the present
+day; but the third molar or wisdom tooth is most
+frequently affected. The occurrence is extremely
+unusual in the other molar teeth of modern men.
+Yet among the Krapina teeth, such fusion is striking
+both in its degree and in its frequency. So
+marked a characteristic has attracted much attention.
+Professor Kramberger holds the view that it constituted
+a feature of adaptation peculiar to the
+Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this,
+Professor Adloff holds that the character is so
+definite and marked as to enter into the category
+of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion
+of these views was carried on somewhat
+warmly, but yet to some extent fruitlessly so long as
+the only known examples were those from Krapina.
+Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on
+the other side may be ranged the support of
+Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very
+substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor
+Adloff and his supporters. For in a cave near
+S. Brélade's Bay in Jersey, the explorations of
+Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span>
+brought to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very
+similar form. They are said indeed by Dr Keith to
+be precisely comparable to those from Krapina. The
+conjoined roots of such teeth should be regarded
+therefore as more than a peculiarity of the Palaeolithic
+men of Croatia, and rather as a very definite
+means of assigning to a particular Palaeolithic epoch
+any other instances of a similar nature. Space will
+not admit of more than a simple record of two
+other features of the Krapina teeth. They are
+(<i>a</i>) the curvature of the canine teeth and (<i>b</i>) the
+remarkable size and extent of the &lsquo;pulp-cavity&rsquo;
+(cf. <a href="#img_8.jpg">Fig. 8</a>, <i>Ko</i>) of the molar teeth. In entering
+upon so protracted a discussion of this part of the
+evidence, the excuse is proffered that, as may be
+noted in the instances at Trinil and Taubach, teeth
+are remarkably well-fitted for preservation in the
+fossil state, since they may be preserved in circumstances
+leading to the complete destruction of
+other parts of the skeleton.</p>
+
+<p>The limb bones of the Krapina skeletons are
+chiefly remarkable for the variety they present.
+Some are short and stout, of almost pygmy proportions:
+others are long and slender, inappropriate
+in these respects to the massive skull fragments
+which predominate. The distinction of two human
+types upon evidence furnished by the limb bones has
+already been mentioned.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span></p>
+
+<h3><i>S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey.</i></h3>
+
+<p>A cave in this locality has been explored during
+the last two years (1910, 1911). Human remains are
+represented by the teeth already mentioned on account
+of their resemblance to those found at Krapina. The
+resemblance depends primarily upon the curious
+fusion of the roots in the molar teeth. Moreover, the
+circumference of the combined and thickened roots is
+so great as to confer a most remarkable &lsquo;columnar&rsquo;
+appearance on the affected teeth (cf. <a href="#img_8.jpg">fig. 8</a>, <i>K.o.</i>). The
+teeth from Krapina and Jersey while thus associated
+must be contrasted with some specimens which they
+resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth
+in the Mauer jaw have been described as similar to
+those from Krapina, but I cannot confirm this from
+Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (<i>H</i>) is
+a fair representation. The teeth of the Forbes Quarry
+and Le Moustier specimens do not conform to the
+precise requirements of the test. The Spy teeth are
+said to have three distinct roots save in two cases,
+where the numbers are four and two respectively. The
+test of combined molar roots therefore provides
+a means of subdividing a group of examples otherwise
+similar, rather than a mark of recognition
+applicable to all alike.</p>
+
+<p>The S. Brélade teeth also resemble those from
+Krapina in the proportions of their crowns and the
+unusually large size of the pulp-cavity. The latter
+character may prove more important than the fusion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span>
+of the roots. But the evidence of their surroundings
+assigns the teeth from Jersey to an epoch less ancient
+than that of the Krapina men.</p>
+
+<h3><i>La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze).</i></h3>
+
+<p>The human skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints
+holds a very distinguished position among its congeners.
+In the first place, the discovery was
+not haphazard, but made by two very competent
+observers during their excavations. Again, the
+remains comprise not only the nearly intact brain-case,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>
+but much of the facial part of the skull,
+together with the lower jaw and many bones of the
+trunk and limbs. The individual was a male of
+mature age, but not senile (Manouvrier). For these
+reasons, the value of this skeleton in evidence is
+singularly great.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_9.jpg" width="500" height="483"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_9.jpg" id="img_9.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 9. Profile view of the skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints
+(Corrèze). (From Birkner, after Boule.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Speaking generally, the specimen is found to
+resemble very closely the Neanderthal skeleton in
+practically every structure and feature common to
+the two individuals. This correspondence is confirmatory
+therefore of the view which assigns great
+antiquity to the Neanderthal man, and in addition
+to this, further support is given to the recognition
+of these examples (together with those from Spy and
+Krapina) as representatives of a widely distributed
+type. It is increasingly difficult to claim them as
+individual variations which have been preserved
+fortuitously.</p>
+
+<p>Beyond these inferences, the skeleton from La
+Chapelle adds very greatly to the sum total of our
+knowledge of the structural details of these skeletons.
+For here the facial bones are well preserved. Before
+proceeding to their consideration reference should
+be made to the side view of the skull (Fig. 9), as
+well as to the tracings of the brain-case brought
+into comparison with those provided by the Neanderthal
+and Spy crania. In the case of one illustration
+of those tracings (Fig. 10) it must be remarked<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a><br /><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span>
+that objection is taken by Professor Klaatsch to
+the base-line selected, though in this particular
+instance, that objection has less weight than in
+others.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_10.jpg" width="500" height="283"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_10.jpg" id="img_10.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 10. Outline tracings (cf. <a href="#img_1.jpg">Fig. 1</a>) of various human skulls of the
+Palaeolithic Age. (From Boule.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Turning to the facial parts of the skull, the brows
+will be seen to overhang the face less than in many
+crania of aboriginal Australians. Prognathism, <i>i.e.</i>
+projection of the jaws (Fig. 11), though distinct, is less
+pronounced than might be expected. Hereby the
+reconstruction of the facial parts of the Neanderthal
+skull, as prepared by Professor Klaatsch, is shewn
+to be much exaggerated. The skeleton of the
+nose reveals some simian traits, and on either
+side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is shallow or
+non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>
+this character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet
+it is quite uncommon in this degree among modern
+European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida Ruggeri
+to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The
+reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large
+and in the incisor region (<i>i.e.</i> in front) are much curved
+downwards in the direction of their length. But this,
+though probably correct, is yet a matter of inference,
+for only a couple of teeth (the second premolars
+of the left side) were found <i>in situ</i>. And so far no
+detailed description of these teeth has appeared.
+The mandible is of extraordinary dimensions; very
+widely separated &lsquo;ascending rami&rsquo; converge to the
+massive body of the jaw. The sigmoid notch is almost
+as shallow as in the Mauer jaw. The chin is retreating
+or absent.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_11.jpg" width="600" height="226"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_11.jpg" id="img_11.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 11. Contours of two skulls, <i>A</i> of a New Guinea man; <i>B</i> of an
+European woman. The angle <i>B.PR.P</i> measures the degree of
+prognathism, and in this respect, the two specimens are strongly
+contrasted. (From specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Such are the more easily recognisable features of
+the skull. It will be understood that many more
+details remain for discussion. But within the allotted
+space, two only can be dealt with. The capacity of
+the brain-case is surprisingly large, for it is estimated
+at 1600 cubic centimetres: from this figure (which
+will be the subject of further discussion in the sequel)
+it appears that the man of La Chapelle was amply
+provided with cerebral material for all ordinary needs
+as judged even by modern standards. In the second
+place, MM. Boule and Anthony, not content with a
+mere estimate of capacity, have published an elaborate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span>
+account of the form of the brain as revealed by a cast
+of the interior of the brain-case. As the main result
+of their investigations, they are enabled to record a list
+of characters indicative of a comparatively lowly status
+as regards the form of the brain, although in actual
+size it leaves little to be desired.</p>
+
+<p>The principal points of interest in the remainder
+of the skeleton refer in the first instance to the
+estimate of stature and the evidence provided as to
+the natural pose and attitude of the individual. Using
+Professor Pearson's table, I estimate the stature as
+being from 1600 to 1620 mm. (5ft. 3in. or 5ft. 4in.), a
+result almost identical with the estimate given for the
+Neanderthal man. In both, the limb bones are
+relatively thick and massive, and by the curvature of
+the thigh-bones and of the upper parts of the shin-bones,
+a suggestion is given of the peculiar gait
+described by Professor Manouvrier as &lsquo;la marche en
+flexion&rsquo;; the distinctive feature consists in an incompleteness
+of the straightening of the knee-joint
+as the limb is swung forwards between successive
+steps.</p>
+
+<p>The bones of the foot are not lacking in interest,
+and, in particular, that called astragalus is provided
+with an unusually extensive joint-surface on its outer
+aspect. In this respect it becomes liable to comparison
+with the corresponding bone in the feet of
+climbing animals, whether simian or other.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>That these features of the bone in question are
+not peculiar to the skeleton from La Chapelle, is
+shewn by their occurrence in bones of corresponding
+antiquity from La Quina (Martin, 1911) and (it is
+also said) from La Ferrassie (Boule, L'Anthropologie,
+Mai-Juin, 1911).</p>
+
+<h3><i>Homo mousterensis hauseri</i> (<i>Dordogne</i>)</h3>
+
+<p>This skeleton was discovered in the lower rock-shelter
+of Le Moustier (Dordogne, France) in the
+course of excavations carried out by Professor
+Hauser (of Swiss nationality) during the year 1908.
+The final removal of the bones was conducted in
+the presence of a number of German archaeologists
+expressly invited to attend. The omission to
+inform or invite any French archaeologists, and the
+immediate removal of the bones to Breslau, are
+regrettable incidents which cast a shadow quite
+unnecessarily on an event of great archaeological
+interest. By a curious coincidence this took place a
+few days after the discovery of the human skeleton of
+La Chapelle (<i>v. supra</i>). The two finds are very
+fortunately complementary to each other in several
+respects, for the Dordogne skeleton is that of a youth,
+whereas the individual of La Chapelle was fully
+mature. In their main characters, the two skeletons
+are very similar, so that in the present account it will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span>
+be necessary only to mention the more important
+features revealed by the study of the Dordogne
+specimen. Outline drawings of the two skulls are
+compared with the corresponding contour of the
+Neanderthal calvaria by Klaatsch.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_12.jpg" width="500" height="555"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_12.jpg" id="img_12.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 12. Outline tracing of a cast of the Moustier skull (Dordogne).
+(From a specimen in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_13.jpg" width="450" height="314"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_13.jpg" id="img_13.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 13. Tracings from casts (in the Cambridge Museum) of the
+jaw-bone from Mauer and of that of the Moustier skeleton.
+The Mauer jaw is indicated by the continuous line.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>In the Dordogne youth the bones were far more
+fragile than in the older man from La Chapelle.
+Nevertheless, photographs taken while the bones
+were still <i>in situ</i> but uncovered, provide a means of
+realising many features of interest. Moreover although
+the face in particular was greatly damaged, yet the
+teeth are perfectly preserved, and were replaced in
+the reconstructed skull of which a representation
+is shewn in Fig. 12. This reconstruction cannot
+however be described as a happy result of the
+great labour bestowed upon it. In particular it is
+almost certain that the skull is now more prognathous
+than in its natural state. Apart from such drawbacks
+the value of the specimen is very great, and this is
+especially the case in regard to the teeth and the
+lower jaw. The former are remarkably large, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span>
+they agree herein with the teeth from Krapina
+(though their roots are distinct and not conjoined as
+in the Krapina examples). In respect of size, the
+teeth of the Dordogne individual surpass those of the
+Mauer jaw, but the first lower molar has proportions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span>
+similar to the corresponding tooth of that specimen.
+But, large as they are, the lower teeth are implanted
+in a mandible falling far short of the Mauer jaw in
+respect of size and weight (Fig. 13). In fact one of
+the great characteristics of the Dordogne skeleton
+is the inadequacy of the mandible when compared
+to the remainder of the skull, even though allowance
+is made for the youth of the individual. Were it
+not that the facts are beyond dispute, it is difficult to
+imagine that such a mandible could be associated
+with so large and capacious a cranium. And yet the
+jaw is not devoid of points in which it resembles
+the Mauer bone, in spite of its much smaller bulk.
+Thus the chin is defective, the lower border undulating,
+and the ascending branch is wide in proportion to its
+height. A good idea of these features is provided by
+the illustration of the side-view (cf. <a href="#img_14.jpg">Fig. 14</a>) given by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>
+Professor Frizzi. Seen from above, the contour is
+in close agreement with that of several well-known
+examples, such as the jaws from Spy (cf. <a href="#img_15.jpg">Fig. 15</a>)
+and Krapina.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_14.jpg" width="600" height="481"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_14.jpg" id="img_14.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 14. Outline tracings of jaw-bones. In the lower row, sections
+are represented as made vertically in the median plane through
+the chin, which is either receding or prominent. In this series,
+the numbers refer to those given in the upper set. (From Frizzi.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_15.jpg" width="500" height="174"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_15.jpg" id="img_15.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 15. Outline tracings of jaw-bones viewed from above. <i>A</i> an
+ancient Briton (cf. <a href="#img_2.jpg">Fig. 2</a>, <i>B</i>). <i>B</i> Moustier. <i>C</i> Mauer. (<i>B</i> and
+<i>C</i> are from casts in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The limb bones agree in general appearance with
+those of the skeletons of the Neanderthal and La
+Chapelle. Though absolutely smaller than in those
+examples, they are yet similar in regard to their
+stoutness. The femur is short and curved, and the
+articular ends are disproportionately large as judged
+by modern standards. The tibia is prismatic, resembling
+herein the corresponding bone in the Spy
+skeleton. It is not flattened or sabre-like, as in certain
+other prehistoric skeletons.</p>
+
+<p>Another point of interest derived from the study
+of the limb bones is the stature they indicate.
+Having regard to all the bones available, a mean
+value of about 1500 mm. (about 4 ft. 11 in.) is thus
+inferred. Yet the youth was certainly 16 years
+of age and might have been as much as 19 years.
+The comparison of stature with that of the other
+examples described is given in a later chapter.
+At present, it is important to remark that in
+view of this determination (of 4 ft. 11 in.) and even
+when allowance is made for further growth in stature
+the large size of the skull must be regarded as very
+extraordinary indeed. A similar remark applies to
+the estimate of the capacity of the brain-case. A<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>
+moderate estimate gives 1600 c.c. as the capacity of
+the brain-case (practically identical with that of the
+La Chapelle skull). In modern Europeans of about
+5 ft. 6 in., this high figure would not cause surprise.
+In a modern European of the same stature as the
+Dordogne man (4 ft. 11 in.), so capacious a brain-case
+would be regarded if not as a pathological anomaly,
+yet certainly as the extreme upper limit of normal
+variation. Without insisting further on this paradoxical
+result (which is partly due to defective
+observations), it will suffice to remark that early
+Palaeolithic man was furnished with a very adequate
+quantity of brain-material, whatever its quality may
+have been. In regard to the amount, no symptom or
+sign of an inferior evolutionary status can be detected.</p>
+
+<h3><i>La Ferrassie</i> (<i>Dordogne, France</i>).</h3>
+
+<p>This discovery was made in a rock-shelter during
+its excavation in the autumn of 1909 by M. Peyrony.
+A human skeleton was found in the floor of the
+grotto, and below strata characterised by Mousterian
+implements. The bones were excessively
+fragile, and though the greatest care was taken in
+their removal, the skull on arrival at Paris was in a
+condition described by Professor Boule (L'Anthropologie,
+1911, p. 118) as &lsquo;très brisée.&rsquo; No detailed
+account has yet appeared, though even in its fragmentary
+condition, the specimen is sure to provide
+valuable information. From the photographs taken<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>
+while the skeleton lay <i>in situ</i> after its exposure, it is
+difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion as to its
+characters. But in regard to these, some resemblance
+at least (in the jaws) to the Neanderthal type can be
+detected.</p>
+
+<p>M. Peyrony found also in the same year and in
+the same region (at Le Pech de l'Aze) the cranium
+of a child, assignable to the same epoch as the
+skeleton of La Ferrassie. But so far no further
+details have been published.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Forbes Quarry</i> (<i>Gibraltar</i>).</h3>
+
+<p>The human skull thus designated was found in
+the year 1848. It was, so to speak, rediscovered by
+Messrs Busk and Falconer. The former authority
+described the specimen in 1864, but this description
+is only known from an abstract in the Reports
+of the British Association. Broca published an
+account of the osteological characters a few years
+later. After 1882, the skull again fell into obscurity
+for some twenty years: thereafter it attracted the
+attention of Dr Macnamara, Professor Schwalbe, and
+above all of Professor Sollas, who published the first
+detailed and critical account in 1907. This has
+stimulated yet other researches, particularly those of
+Professor Sera (of Florence) in 1909, and the literature
+thus growing up bids fair to rival that of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span>
+Neanderthal skeleton. A most important feature of
+the specimen consists in the fact that the bones
+of the face have remained intact and in connection
+with the skull. But the mandible is wanting, and
+the molar teeth of the upper set are absent.</p>
+
+<p>As may be gathered from the tracing published
+by Dr Sera (cf. <a href="#img_16.jpg">Fig. 16</a>) the upper part of the brain-case
+is imperfect. Nevertheless the contour has
+been restored, and the Neanderthal-like features of
+distinct brow-ridges, followed by a low flattened
+cranial curve, are recognisable at once. The facial
+profile is almost complete, and in this respect the
+Forbes Quarry skull stood alone until the discovery
+of the specimen from La Chapelle. Since that
+incident, this distinction is not absolute, but the
+Forbes Quarry skull is still unique amidst the other
+fossils in respect of the bones forming what is called
+the cranial base. In no other specimen hitherto
+found, are these bones so complete, or so well preserved
+in their natural position.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_16.jpg" width="600" height="441"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_16.jpg" id="img_16.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 16. Outline tracing and sectional view of the Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull.
+The various angles are used for comparative purposes. (From Sera.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The Forbes Quarry skull is clearly of Neanderthaloid
+type as regards the formation of the brain-case;
+in respect of the face it resembles in general the skull
+from La Chapelle. But in respect of the estimated
+capacity of the brain-case (estimated at 1100 c.c.),
+the Forbes Quarry skull falls far short of both those
+other examples. Moreover the cranial base assigns
+to it an extremely lowly position. The individual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a><br /><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span>
+is supposed by some to have been of the female sex,
+but there is no great certainty about this surmise.
+The enormous size of the eye-cavities and of the
+opening of the nose confer a very peculiar appearance
+upon the face, and are best seen in the full-face view.
+Some other features of the skull will be considered
+in the concluding chapter, when its relation to skulls
+of the Neanderthal type will be discussed in detail.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Andalusia, Spain.</i></h3>
+
+<p>In 1910, Colonel Willoughby Verner discovered
+several fragments of a human skeleton in a cave in
+the Serranía de Ronda. These fragments have been
+presented to the Hunterian Museum. They seem to
+be absolutely mineralised. Though imperfect, they
+indicate that their possessor was adult and of pygmy
+stature. The thigh-bone in particular is of interest, for
+an upper fragment presents a curious conformation of
+the rounded prominence called the greater trochanter.
+In this feature, and in regard to the small size of the
+head of the bone, the femur is found to differ from
+most other ancient fossil thigh-bones, and from those
+of modern human beings, with the exception of some
+pygmy types, viz. the dwarf-like cave-dwellers of
+Aurignac (compared by Pruner-Bey in 1868 to the
+Bushmen), the aborigines of the Andaman islands,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span>
+and the aboriginal Bushmen of South Africa. A full
+description of the bones has not been published, but
+will probably appear very shortly.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Grimaldi</i> (<i>Mentone Caves</i>).</h3>
+
+<p>Among the numerous human skeletons yielded by
+the caves of Mentone, two were discovered at a great
+depth in a cave known as the &lsquo;Grotte des Enfants.&rsquo;
+The excavations were set on foot by the Prince of
+Monaco, and these particular skeletons have been
+designated the &lsquo;Grimaldi&rsquo; remains.</p>
+
+<p>Their chief interest (apart from the evidence as
+to a definite interment having taken place) consists
+in the alleged presence of &lsquo;negroid&rsquo; characters. The
+skeletons are those of a young man (cf. <a href="#img_17.jpg">Fig. 17</a>),
+and an aged woman. The late Professor Gaudry
+examined the jaw of the male skeleton. He noted the
+large dimensions of the teeth, the prognathism, the
+feeble development of the chin, and upon such
+grounds pointed out the similarity of this jaw to
+those of aboriginal natives of Australia. Some years
+later Dr Verneau, in describing the same remains,
+based a claim to (African) negroid affinity on those
+characters, adding thereto evidence drawn from a
+study of the limb bones. In both male and female
+alike, the lower limbs are long and slender, while the
+forearm and shin-bones are relatively long when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>
+compared respectively with the arm and the thigh-bones.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_17.jpg" width="500" height="519"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_17.jpg" id="img_17.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 17. Profile view of young male skull of the type designated
+that of &lsquo;Grimaldi,&rsquo; and alleged to present &lsquo;negroid&rsquo; features.
+<i>Locality.</i> Deeper strata in the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone.
+(From Birkner, after Verneau, modified.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>From a review of the evidence it seems that the
+term &lsquo;negroid&rsquo; is scarcely justified, and there is no
+doubt that the Grimaldi skeletons could be matched
+without difficulty by skeletons of even recent date.
+Herein they are strongly contrasted with skeletons
+of the Neanderthal group. And although modern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span>
+Europeans undoubtedly may possess any of the
+osteological characters claimed as &lsquo;negroid&rsquo; by Dr
+Verneau, nevertheless the African negro races possess
+those characters more frequently and more markedly.
+Caution in accepting the designation &lsquo;negroid&rsquo; is
+therefore based upon reluctance to allow positive
+evidence from two or three characters to outweigh
+numerous negative indications; and besides this
+consideration, it will be admitted that two specimens
+provide but a feeble basis for supporting the superstructure
+thus laid on their characters. Lastly Dr
+Verneau has been at some pains to shew that skulls
+of the &lsquo;Grimaldi-negroid&rsquo; type persist in modern times.
+Yet the possessors of many and probably most such
+modern crania were white men and not negroes.</p>
+
+<p>Enough has however been related to shew how
+widely the skeletons from the &lsquo;Grotte des Enfants&rsquo;
+differ from the Palaeolithic remains associated as the
+Neanderthal type.</p>
+
+<hr class="hr65" />
+
+<p><i>South America.</i> With the exception of Pithecanthropus,
+all the discoveries mentioned in the
+foregoing paragraphs were made in Europe. From
+other parts of the world, actual human remains
+referable to earlier geological epochs are scanty save
+in South America. The discoveries made in this
+part of the New World have been described at great
+length. In many instances, claims to extraordinary<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span>
+antiquity have been made on their behalf. It is
+necessary therefore to examine the credentials of
+such specimens. Upon an examination of the evidence,
+I have come to the conclusion that two instances
+only deserve serious attention and criticism.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Baradero.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Fragmentary remains of a human skeleton: the
+mandible is the best preserved portion; unfortunately
+the front part has been broken off so that no
+conclusion can be formed as to the characters of
+the chin. Otherwise in regard to its proportions,
+some resemblance is found with the mandible of the
+Spy skull (No. 1). More important and definite is
+the direction of the grinding surfaces of the molar
+teeth. In the lower jaw, this surface is said to look
+forwards. The interest of this observation consists
+in the fact that the tooth from Taubach presents the
+same feature, which is unusual.</p>
+
+<p>Beyond these, the skeleton from the löss of
+Baradero presents no distinctive features save the
+remarkable length of the upper limbs.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Monte Hermoso.</i></h3>
+
+<p>From this region two bones were obtained at
+different dates. These are an atlas vertebra (the
+vertebra next to the skull) and a thigh-bone. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span>
+latter is of less than pygmy dimensions. Both are
+from fully adult skeletons.</p>
+
+<p>An attempt has been made to reconstruct an
+individual (the Tetraprothomo of Ameghino) to which
+the two bones should be referred. It will be noticed
+that the circumstances bear some, although a very
+faint, analogy to those in which the remains of
+Pithecanthropus were found. The results are however
+extraordinarily different. Professor Branco has
+ably shewn that in the case of the bones from
+Monte Hermoso, the association in one and the
+same skeleton would provide so large a skull in
+proportion to the rest of the body, that the result
+becomes not only improbable, but impossible. It is
+therefore necessary to treat the bones separately. If
+this is done, there is no reason to regard the thigh-bone
+as other than that of a large monkey of one of
+the varieties known to have inhabited South America
+in prehistoric as well as in recent times.</p>
+
+<p>The vertebra is more interesting. It is small but
+thick and strong in a degree out of proportion to
+its linear dimensions. Professor Lehmann-Nitsche
+supposes that it may have formed part of a skeleton
+like that of Pithecanthropus, that is to say that it is
+not part of a pygmy skeleton. On the other hand,
+Dr Rivet considers that the Monte Hermoso vertebra
+could be matched exactly by several specimens in the
+large collection of exotic human skeletons in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span>
+National Museum, Paris. Be this as it may, there
+is no doubt that the atlas vertebra in question constitutes
+the most interesting discovery of its kind
+made so far in South America. It is important to
+notice that time after time the attempts made to
+demonstrate the early origin of Man in the American
+Continent have resulted in failure, which in some
+instances has been regrettably ignominious.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Combe Capelle</i> (<i>H. aurignacensis hauseri</i>).</h3>
+
+<p>Returning to Europe, it is to be noted that
+in a rock-shelter near Combe-Capelle (Dordogne),
+the excavations of Dr Hauser led to the discovery in
+1909 of an entire human skeleton of the male sex.
+The interment (for such it was) had taken place
+in the Aurignacian period. The skeleton presents a
+very striking appearance. In stature, no important
+divergence from the Neanderthal type can be noted.
+But the more vertical forehead, more boldly-curved
+arc of the brain-case, the diminished brow-ridges,
+large mastoid processes and distinct canine fossae
+provide a complete contrast between the Aurignac
+man and those of the Neanderthal group. Moreover
+the Aurignac jaw has a slight projection at the chin,
+where an &lsquo;internal process&rsquo; is now distinct. The
+brain-case has dolicho-cephalic proportions in a
+marked degree. The limb bones are straight and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span>
+slender, and not so much enlarged in the regions of
+the several joints.</p>
+
+<p>The Aurignac skeleton of Combe Capelle has
+been associated with several others by Professor
+Klaatsch. By some authorities they are considered
+as transitional forms bridging the gap between the
+early Palaeolithic types and those of the existing
+Hominidae. But Professor Klaatsch evidently regards
+them as intruders and invaders of the territory
+previously occupied by the more lowly Neanderthaloid
+type.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Galley Hill.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Among the skeletons which have been thus
+associated with the Aurignac man, are three which
+have for many years attracted the attention of
+anthropologists. For this reason, no detailed account
+of their characters will be given here. Of the
+three instances referred to, two are the fragmentary
+skull-caps of the skeletons found at Brüx and at
+Brünn in Moravia. The latter specimen is generally
+described as Brünn (91) to distinguish it from Brünn
+(85), a different and earlier find of less interest.</p>
+
+<p>It will suffice to mention here that both specimens
+agree in possessing what may be described as a
+distinctly mitigated form of the characters so strongly
+developed in the Neanderthal skull and its allies.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>
+The Aurignac and Brüx skulls are distinctly longer
+and narrower than that of Brünn (91). The limb
+bones are not available for the purposes of evidence.</p>
+
+<p>The third specimen possesses a very much greater
+interest. It is known as the Galley Hill skeleton
+from the site of its discovery near Northfleet in Kent.
+Since it was first described by Mr E. T. Newton
+(in 1895), much literature has accumulated about the
+difficult problems presented by the Galley Hill
+skeleton. By some authors it is regarded as clearly
+associated with the other examples just mentioned
+(Brüx, Brünn, and Aurignac). Others reject its claims
+to high antiquity; of the latter some are courteous,
+others are scornful, but all are absolutely decided.
+Having investigated the literature as well as I could,
+and having seen the cranium, I decided that the
+claims to great antiquity made on its behalf do really
+justify its inclusion. But I am quite convinced
+that the skeleton will give no more than very general
+indications. Thus the bones are fragile in the
+extreme. And besides this, the skull is so contorted
+that measurements made in the usual way must be
+extraordinarily misleading and the possible error is
+too great to be successfully allowed for (cf. <a href="#img_18.jpg">Fig. 18</a>).</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_18.jpg" width="401" height="600"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_18.jpg" id="img_18.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 18. Outline tracing of the Galley Hill skull, viewed
+from above. (From Klaatsch.)</p>
+
+<table summary="legend">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">--- Galley Hill.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">&middot;&middot;&middot; Neanderthal.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><b>---</b> Ancient German.</td>
+  <td class="tdl"><b>&middot;&middot;&middot;</b> Modern South German.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+<p>To insist upon these points is the more important
+since nowadays various indices based on such
+measurements of the Galley Hill cranium will be
+found tabulated with data yielded by other skulls,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a><br /><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>
+and yet no mark of qualification distinguishes the
+former figures.</p>
+
+<p>The description of the skeleton may be given in
+a very few words. In the great majority of its characters,
+it is not seen to differ from modern human
+beings (though the stature is small, viz. 1600 mm.,
+5 ft. 3 in.). And so far as I am able to judge, the
+characters claimed as distinctive (separating the
+Galley Hill skull from modern dolichocephalic European
+skulls) are based upon observations containing a
+very large possibility of error.</p>
+
+<p>Having regard to such statements, the inference
+is that the Galley Hill skull does not in fact differ
+essentially from its modern European counterparts.
+Similar conclusions have been formed in regard to
+the other parts of this skeleton. It is important to
+note that the specimen does not lose its interest on
+this account.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Summary.</i></h3>
+
+<p>From the foregoing descriptions, it follows that
+of the most ancient remains considered, at least three
+divisions can be recognised. In the first place, come
+the examples described as Pithecanthropus and <i>Homo
+heidelbergensis</i> (Mauer). In the second category
+come instances as to which no reasonable doubt as
+to their definitely human characters now exists (save<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>
+possibly in the case of the Taubach tooth and the
+Hermoso atlas). Of the members of this second series,
+two sub-divisions here designated (<i>A</i>) and (<i>B</i>) can be
+demonstrated; these with the first examples complete
+the threefold grouping set out in the table following,
+with which Table A, p. 85, should be compared.</p>
+
+<table cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" summary="subdivision">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3"><span class="smcap">Group I.</span><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Early ancestral forms.</span><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis.</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3"><span class="smcap">Group II.</span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Subdivision A.</i></span><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Homo primigenius.</i></span></td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="2"><i>Ex. gr. La Chapelle.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" valign="middle" rowspan="2"><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Subdivision B.</i></span><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>H. recens;</i> with varieties</span></td>
+  <td class="tdl" valign="middle" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+      <tr>
+        <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+      </tr>
+    </table>
+  </td>
+   <td class="tdl">H. fossilis. <i>Ex. gr. Galley Hill.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+   <td class="tdl">H. sapiens.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Taking the first group (Pithecanthropus and
+<i>Homo heidelbergensis</i>) it is to be noticed that close
+correlation is quite possible. Besides this, evidence
+exists in each case to the effect that far-distant
+human ancestors are hereby revealed to their modern
+representatives. Of their physical characters, distinct
+indications are given of the possession of a small
+brain in a flattened brain-case associated with powerful
+jaws; the lower part of the face being distinguished
+by the absence of any projection of the chin. The
+teeth indicate with some degree of probability that
+their diet was of a mixed nature, resembling in this
+respect the condition of many modern savage tribes.
+Beyond this, the evidence is weak and indefinite. It
+is highly probable that these men were not arboreal:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>
+though whether they habitually assumed the distinctive
+erect attitude is a point still in doubt. And yet again,
+while the indications are not clear, it is probable that
+in stature they were comparable, if not superior, to the
+average man of to-day.</p>
+
+<p>Passing from this division to the second, a region
+of much greater certainty is entered. Of the second
+group, one subdivision (<i>A</i>) retains certain characters
+of the earlier forms. Thus the massive continuous
+brow-ridge persists, as do also the flattened brain-case
+with a large mass of jaw-muscle, and a ponderous
+chinless lower jaw. For the rest, the points of
+contrast are much more prominent than those of
+similarity. The brain has increased in size. This
+increase is very considerable in absolute amount.
+But relatively also to the size of the possessor, the
+increase in brain-material is even more striking, for
+the stature and consequently bulk and weight are
+less. The thigh-bone offers important points of
+difference, the earlier long slender form (in <i>P. erectus</i>)
+being now replaced by a shorter, curved, thick substitute.
+If there has been inheritance here, marked
+and aberrant variation is also observed.</p>
+
+<p>The second subdivision (<i>B</i>) remains for consideration.
+Here the stature has not appreciably changed.
+The limb bones are long, slender, and less curved
+than those of the other associated human beings (<i>A</i>),
+and herein the earliest type is suggested once more.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>
+But the differences occur now in the skull. The
+brain is as large as in the other subdivision (<i>A</i>) and
+in modern men. The brain-case is becoming elevated:
+the brow-ridges are undergoing reduction; this
+process, commencing at their outer ends, expresses
+to some extent the degree of reduction in the muscles
+and bone of the lower jaw. The teeth are smaller
+and the chin becomes more prominent. The distinction
+from modern types of humanity is often impossible.</p>
+
+<p>In the next chapter some account is given of the
+circumstances under which the bones were discovered,
+and of the nature of their surroundings.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CHAPTER III<br />
+<span style="font-size: 80%;">ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS AND CAVES</span></h2>
+
+<p>The principal characters of the oldest known
+human remains having been thus set forth, the
+circumstances of their surroundings next demand
+attention. A brief indication of these will be given
+with the aid of the illustrations provided in the
+original memoirs in each case, and the order of
+descriptions followed in the preceding chapter will
+be observed.</p>
+
+<p><i>Pithecanthropus.</i> The remains of Pithecanthropus
+were recovered from an alluvial deposit at Trinil.
+A section of this is shewn in Fig. 19. An idea may
+thus be gained of the very considerable amount of
+superincumbent materials. The associated fauna
+cannot be compared directly to that of any Western
+European locality. But in comparison with the
+modern fauna of Java, the strata in which the
+Pithecanthropus was found shew a predominance
+of extinct species, though not of genera. Elephants
+and hippopotami were present: they point to a close
+relation between the fauna of Trinil and that of
+certain Siwalik strata in India, referred to a late<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span>
+Pliocene age. The difference of opinion upon this
+point has been mentioned in the preceding chapter:
+here it will suffice to repeat that a final conclusion
+does not appear to have been reached, and that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>
+experts who have examined the strata in situ still
+differ from each other.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_19.jpg" width="500" height="481"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_19.jpg" id="img_19.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. <i>A</i> vegetable soil.
+<i>B</i> Sand-rock. <i>C</i> Lapilli-rock. <i>D</i> Level at which the bones
+were found. <i>E</i> Conglomerate. <i>F</i> Clay. <i>H</i> Rainy-season level
+of river. <i>I</i> Dry-season level of river. (From Dubois.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><i>Mauer.</i> Impressed by the similarity of the conditions
+at Mauer to those of the fossiliferous tufa-beds
+near Taubach and Weimar, Dr Schoetensack had
+anticipated the possibility of obtaining valuable fossil
+relics from the former locality. For some twenty years,
+Dr Schoetensack kept in touch with the workmen of
+Mauer, and thus when the jawbone was found, he
+was summoned at once. Even so, the jaw had been
+removed from its resting-place, and broken in two
+fragments. Yet there is no doubt as to the exact
+position in which it was found. Sand and löss
+(a fine earthy deposit) had accumulated above it
+to a thickness of seventy feet. The nature of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span>
+surroundings may be estimated by reference to the
+illustration (Fig. 20) reproducing Dr Schoetensack's
+photograph of the sand-pit. The sands which contained
+the mandible represent an alluvial deposit,
+and so far resemble the Trinil beds in Java. The
+attempt to institute an exact comparison would be
+unprofitable, but on the whole it would seem that,
+of the two, the Mauer sands represent the later stage.
+The fauna associated with the Mauer jaw includes
+such forms as <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros etruscus</i>,
+<i>Ursus arvernensis</i>, <i>U. deningeri</i> (an ancestral form
+of <i>U. spelaeus</i>), together with a species of horse
+intermediate between <i>Equus stenonis</i>, and the fossil
+horse found at Taubach. The cave-lion, bison, and
+various deer have also been recognised.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_20.jpg" width="500" height="303"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_20.jpg" id="img_20.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. X (in white) position of jawbone
+when found. (From Birkner, after Schoetensack.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The aspect of this collection shews a marked
+similarity to that of the so-called Forest-bed of
+Cromer, though at the same time indicating a later
+age. The Mauer jaw must therefore be assigned to
+the very earliest part of the Pleistocene epoch. In his
+original memoir, Dr Schoetensack gave no account
+of any associated &lsquo;industry,&rsquo; in the form of stone
+implements. But now (1911) Professor Rutot unhesitatingly
+(though the reasons are not stated)
+ascribes to the horizon of the Mauer jaw, that
+division of the eolithic industries termed by him
+the &ldquo;Mafflien.&rdquo; Upon the correctness of such a
+view judgment may well be reserved for the present.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p>
+
+<p><i>Taubach</i>. The bone-bed (<i>Knochenschicht</i>) of
+Taubach whence the two human teeth were recovered,
+lies at a depth of some 15 feet (5·2 m.) from the
+adjacent surface-soil. No fewer than eleven distinct
+horizons have been recognised in the superincumbent
+strata. Palaeoliths had often been obtained from
+the same stratum as that which yielded the human
+teeth. Dr Weiss referred it to the first, i.e. the
+earlier of two inter-glacial periods judged to have
+occurred in this region. The associated fauna
+includes <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, <i>Bison
+priscus</i>, with Cervidae and representatives of swine,
+beaver and a bear. The similarity of this assemblage
+to that of the Mauer Sands has been
+noted already.</p>
+
+<p>The hippopotamus however does not seem to
+have been recorded in either locality. Nevertheless,
+the general aspect of the mammalian fauna is
+&lsquo;southern&rsquo; (<i>faune chaude</i> of French writers). Upon
+this conclusion, much depends, for the Palaeolithic
+implements (claimed as contemporaneous with the
+extinct &lsquo;southern&rsquo; mammals recorded in the foregoing
+paragraphs) are said to correspond to the type
+of Le Moustier. But Mousterian implements are (it is
+alleged) practically never associated with &lsquo;southern&rsquo;
+animals, so that in this respect the Taubach bone-bed
+provides a paradox. Without discussing this
+paradox at length, it may be stated that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span>
+implements just described as &lsquo;Mousterian&rsquo; are not
+recognised as such by all the experts. Thus Obermaier
+identifies them with those of Levallois, <i>i.e.</i> a late
+S. Acheul type (cf. Obermaier, 1909). Others declare
+that the type is not that of Le Moustier, but of
+Chelles. The latter type of implement is found
+habitually in association with the southern fauna,
+and thus the paradox described above may prove to
+be apparent only and not real. But the unravelling
+of the different opinions relating to the Taubach
+finds is among the easier tasks presented to anyone
+desirous of furnishing a clear statement of the
+actual state of our knowledge on these matters. The
+difficulties with which the whole subject bristles
+may thus be realised.</p>
+
+<p><i>Krapina.</i> Researches productive of evidence as
+to the existence of Palaeolithic man in Croatia, were
+commenced at Krapina so long ago as August, 1899,
+by Professor Kramberger. A preliminary report was
+published in December, 1899. Until the year 1904
+these researches passed almost unnoticed in this
+country. The site was not exhausted until 1905.
+The actual excavations were made in a rock-shelter
+on the right bank of the Krapini[vc]a river, near the
+village of Krapina. The rock-shelter had been to
+some extent invaded not long before the archaeological
+work commenced, and evidence of early human
+occupation of the site was revealed in the form of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>
+dark bands of earth, containing much charcoal.
+These bands were seen as lines in the lower parts of
+the exposed section of the cave contents. Fragments
+of human and other bones to the number of several
+thousands were removed. In one season's work six
+hundred stone implements were found.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>A section of the several strata has been published
+and is reproduced in Fig. 21. Human bones or
+artefacts were found throughout a wide series of
+strata, in which no variations of a cultural nature were
+detected. Throughout the period of human occupation,
+the Palaeolithic inmates of the cave remained
+on an unaltered and rather lowly level of culture.
+This is described by some authorities as Mousterian,
+by others as Aurignacian; in either case as of an
+early Palaeolithic aspect.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_21.jpg" width="500" height="458"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_21.jpg" id="img_21.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. 3, 4 strata with
+human remains. 1 <i>b</i> former level of river-bed. (From Birkner,
+after Kramberger.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>But when the animal remains are considered,
+Krapina seems to present the difficulty already
+encountered in the case of Taubach. For there is no
+doubt but that the &lsquo;southern&rsquo; fauna is to some
+extent represented at Krapina. This qualified form
+of statement is employed because one representative
+only, viz. <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, has been discovered,
+whereas its habitual companions, <i>Elephas antiquus</i>
+and Hippopotamus, have left no traces at Krapina.
+Other animals associated with the cave-men of
+Krapina are not so commonly found in the presence
+of the <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>. Thus the <i>Ursus spelaeus</i>,
+<i>U. arctos</i>, <i>Bos primigenius</i>, and the Arctomys
+(Marmot) are suggestive of a more northern fauna.
+But the presence of even a possibly stray <i>Rhinoceros
+merckii</i> is sufficient to confer an aspect of great
+antiquity on this early Croatian settlement. No
+evidence of formal interments has come to light, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>
+as regards the cannibalistic habits of the human cave-dwellers,
+no more than the merest surmise exists.</p>
+
+<p><i>S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey.</i> In the cave thus
+designated, old hearths were met with at a depth of
+twenty-five feet below the surface. Human beings
+are represented by teeth only. No evidence of
+interments has been recorded. The implements are
+of Mousterian type. Associated with the hearths
+and implements were many fragmentary remains of
+animals. Up to the present time, the following forms
+have been identified: <i>Rhinoceros tichorhinus</i> (the
+hairy rhinoceros), the Reindeer, and two varieties of
+Horse. So far as this evidence goes, the age assigned
+to the implements is supported, or at least not contra-indicated.
+It is most improbable that the period
+represented can be really earlier than the Mousterian,
+though it might be somewhat later. That the
+Krapina teeth (which so curiously resemble those
+of S. Brélade's Bay in respect of the fusion of their
+roots) should be assigned to the same (Mousterian)
+epoch is perhaps significant.</p>
+
+<p><i>La Chapelle-aux-Saints</i> (<i>Corrèze</i>). This is the
+best example of an interment referable to the early
+Palaeolithic age (Fig. 22). Two reasons for this statement
+may be given. In the first place, the skeleton
+lay in a distinctly excavated depression, beneath
+which no signs of an earlier settlement are recorded.
+Secondly, the superincumbent strata can be assigned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>
+to one period only of the archaeological series, viz.
+that of Le Moustier. Indications of the preceding
+period (S. Acheul) as well as of the subsequent one
+(Aurignac) are practically negligible. Moreover the
+surroundings had not been disturbed since the
+interment: this is shewn by the leg-bones of a large
+bovine animal (Bison or Bos) found in their natural
+relations just above the head of the human skeleton.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_22.jpg" width="400" height="525"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_22.jpg" id="img_22.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints
+(Corrèze). (From Boule.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The latter lay on the back, the right arm bent,
+the left extended; both legs were contracted and to
+the right. In general, this attitude recalls that of
+the skeletons of La Ferrassie and the Grotte des
+Enfants (Grimaldi). At Le Moustier too, the skeleton
+was found in a somewhat similar position.</p>
+
+<p>At La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the associated fauna
+includes the Reindeer, Horse, a large bovine form
+(? Bison), <i>Rhinoceros tichorhinus</i>, the Ibex, Wolf,
+Marmot, Badger and Boar.</p>
+
+<p>It would seem that this particular cave had served
+only as a tomb. For other purposes its vertical
+extent is too small. The stone artefacts are all
+perfect tools: no flakes or splinters being found as
+in habitations. The animal remains are supposed to
+be relics of a funeral feast (or feasts). But the
+presence of the Rhinoceros is perhaps antagonistic to
+such an explanation.</p>
+
+<p><i>Le Moustier</i> (<i>Dordogne</i>). The skeleton lay on its
+right side, the right arm bent and supporting the
+head; the left arm was extended. The stratum upon
+which the body rested consisted largely of worked
+flint implements. These are assigned to the later
+Acheulean and earlier Mousterian epochs.</p>
+
+<p>Two features in contrast with the conditions at
+La Chapelle are to be noticed. It is doubtful whether
+the skeleton at Le Moustier had been literally interred.
+It seems rather to have been placed on what was at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span>
+the time the floor of the grotto, and then covered
+partly with earth on which implements were scattered.
+Indications of a definite grave were found at La
+Chapelle. Again at Le Moustier, other parts of the same
+grotto had been occupied as habitations of the living.
+At La Chapelle this seems not to have been the case.</p>
+
+<p>The evidence of the accompanying animal remains
+also differs in the two cases. At Le Moustier, only
+small and very fragmentary animal bones with the
+tooth of an ox were found in the immediate vicinity
+of the human skeleton. An extended search revealed
+bones of <i>Bos primigenius</i> in the cave. No bones of
+the Reindeer were found and their absence is specially
+remarked by Professor Klaatsch, as evidence that the
+skeleton at Le Moustier is of greater antiquity than
+the skeleton accompanied by reindeer bones at La
+Chapelle. In any case, it would seem that no great
+lapse of time separates the two strata.</p>
+
+<p><i>La Ferrassie.</i> The skeleton was found in the
+same attitude as those of La Chapelle and Le Moustier,
+viz. in the dorsal position, the right arm bent, the left
+extended, both legs being strongly flexed at the knee
+and turned to the right side. The bones were covered
+by some 3·5 m. of <i>débris</i>: stone implements were
+yielded by strata above and below the body respectively.
+Beneath the skeleton, the implements are of
+Acheulean type, while above and around it the type
+of Le Moustier was encountered. Aurignacian implements
+occurred still nearer the surface.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In regard to the evidence of interment the conditions
+here resemble those at Le Moustier rather than
+those of La Chapelle. The human skeleton did not
+appear to have been deposited in a grave, but simply
+laid on the ground, covered no doubt by earth upon
+which flint implements were scattered. But the cave
+continued to be occupied until at the close of the
+Aurignacian period a fall of rock sealed up the
+entrance. It is difficult to realise the conditions of life
+in such a cave, after the death of a member of the community,
+unless, as among the cave-dwelling Veddas
+of Ceylon, the cave were temporarily abandoned
+(Seligmann, 1911). It is possible that the normal
+accumulation of animal remains created such an
+atmosphere as would not be greatly altered by the
+addition of a human corpse, for Professor Tylor has
+recorded instances of such interments among certain
+South American tribes. But it is also conceivable
+that the enormously important change in custom from
+inhumation to cremation, may owe an origin to some
+comparatively simple circumstance of this kind. The
+animal remains at La Ferrassie include Bison, Stag,
+and Horse, with a few Reindeer. The general aspect
+is thus concordant with that at La Chapelle.</p>
+
+<p><i>Pech de l'Aze.</i> It is impossible to decide whether
+the child's skull had been buried intentionally or
+not. The associated fauna is apparently identical
+with that of La Ferrassie and La Chapelle.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p>
+
+<p><i>Forbes Quarry</i> (<i>Gibraltar</i>). Of the surroundings
+of the Forbes Quarry skull at the time of its discovery
+nothing is known. In 1910 the present writer explored
+Forbes Quarry and a small cave opening into it.
+But no evidence of the presence of prehistoric man
+was obtained. Bones of recent mammalia and certain
+molluscs found during the excavations, throw no light
+on this subject.</p>
+
+<p><i>Andalusia.</i> At the time of writing, only the
+following information is available as to the surroundings
+of these human cave-bones. They were
+discovered on or near the floor of a deep fissure
+leading to a series of labyrinthine passages. The
+walls of the fissure or cave were decorated with
+drawings of animals resembling those at Cretas in
+Aragon. Besides the mineralised bones, other fragments
+of less antiquated aspect were found. Potsherds
+were also obtained, but I have no information
+as to the occurrence of implements.</p>
+
+<p><i>Grotte des Enfants</i> (<i>Mentone</i>). With regard to
+the two &lsquo;negroid&rsquo; skeletons of this cave, the first
+important point is the enormous thickness of accumulated
+<i>débris</i> by which the bones were covered.
+A depth of some twenty-four feet had been reached
+before the discovery was made (Fig. 23).</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_23.jpg" width="600" height="438"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_23.jpg" id="img_23.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption"> Fig. 23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. <i>I.</i> stratum in which
+the &ldquo;Grimaldi&rdquo; skeletons were found. (From Boule.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The bodies had been definitely interred, large
+stones being found in position, adjusted so as to
+protect the heads particularly. The bodies had been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a><br /><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>
+placed on the right side. Of the woman, both arms
+were bent as were the lower limbs. The male
+skeleton has the right arm flexed, but the left
+extended (as in the cases of La Chapelle, Le Moustier,
+and La Ferrassie).</p>
+
+<p>It is practically certain that the skeletons do not
+belong to an epoch represented, as regards its
+culture or fauna, by strata lower than that which
+supported the human remains. This conclusion is
+very important here. For the evidence of the
+stone implements accompanying the human bones is
+fairly definite: it points to the Mousterian age. The
+animal bones are those of the Reindeer and Cave
+Hyaena. The presence of the former animal supports
+the conclusion arrived at on the evidence of the
+human artefacts. The presence of the Cave Hyaena
+does not controvert that conclusion.</p>
+
+<p>But an interesting fact remains to be considered.
+Below the two human skeletons, the animal remains
+are those of the &lsquo;southern&rsquo; fauna. All the characteristic
+representatives were found, viz. <i>Elephas
+antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, and Hippopotamus.
+The Hyaena was also associated with these large
+animals. It is not clearly stated whether implements
+of Mousterian type occurred in these, the deepest
+strata of the cave-floor. Were this so, the contention
+made in respect of the Taubach implements (cf.
+<i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#Page_67">67</a>) would be remarkably corroborated,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span>
+as would also the somewhat similar suggestion made
+in regard to Krapina. For the moment, however, it
+must suffice to attribute these human remains of
+negroid aspect to the Mousterian period at Mentone.
+Inasmuch as the reindeer appears in several strata
+overlying the remains of the Grimaldi race (for so
+it has been named by Dr Verneau), it is certainly
+conceivable that the two individuals are Aurignacian
+or even later. But this is to enter a wilderness of
+surmise. Human skeletons were actually found in
+those more superficial strata and also were associated
+with the Reindeer. But their cranial features are of
+a higher type (Cro-Magnon) and contrast very clearly
+with those of the more deeply buried individuals.</p>
+
+<p><i>South America.</i> The two discoveries mentioned
+in the preceding chapter were made in the so-called
+Pampas formation of Argentina. This formation has
+been subdivided by geologists into three successive
+portions, viz. upper, middle and lower. The distinction
+is based partly upon evidence derived from
+the actual characters of deposits which differ according
+to their level. But the molluscan fauna
+has also been used as a means of distinction. The
+whole formation is stated by some to be fluviatile.
+Other observers speak of it as Löss. This need not
+necessarily exclude a fluviatile origin, but speaking
+generally that term now suggests an aerial rather than
+a subaqueous deposit. The upper subdivision is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span>
+designated the yellow löss in contrast to the brown
+löss forming the middle layer. Opinion is much
+divided as to the exact geological age of the Pampas
+formation. Ameghino refers it to the Pliocene period,
+excepting the lower divisions which he regards as
+upper Miocene. Professor Lehmann-Nitsche assigns
+Pliocene antiquity to the lowest sub-division only.
+Dr Steinmann regards the middle and lower sub-divisions
+as equivalents of the &lsquo;older&rsquo; löss of
+European Pleistocene deposits. The latter determinations
+are more probably correct than is the first.</p>
+
+<p><i>Baradero.</i> The Baradero skeleton was obtained
+from the middle formation or brown löss, in a locality
+marked by the presence of mollusca corresponding
+with modern forms, and contrasted with the Tertiary
+Argentine mollusca. The skeleton was in a &lsquo;natural&rsquo;
+(<i>i.e.</i> not a contracted) position, the head being
+depressed on the front of the chest. No associated
+implements or remains of mammalian skeletons are
+recorded.</p>
+
+<p><i>Monte Hermoso.</i> The vertebra and femur were
+found in the lower subdivision of the Pampas formation.
+We have seen that Ameghino refers this
+to the Miocene epoch: Lehmann-Nitsche speaks of it
+as Pliocene, Steinmann's opinion suggests a still later
+date, while Scott also declares that no greater age
+than that of the Pleistocene period can be assigned.
+The two specimens were obtained at very different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span>
+times, an interval of many years separating the dates
+of the respective discoveries. So far as is known, no
+mammalian or other animal remains have been
+yielded by the strata in question, so that the whole
+case in regard to evidence is one of the most unsatisfactory
+on record. Indeed the whole question of
+&lsquo;dating&rsquo; the Argentine discoveries, whether absolutely
+or relatively, must be regarded as an unsolved problem.</p>
+
+<p><i>Combe Capelle</i> (<i>Dordogne</i>). The circumstances
+of this discovery were as follows. The skeleton lay
+in an extended position, and it had been placed in
+an excavation made for the purpose of interment.
+This excavation entered a stratum distinguished as
+Mousterian. But the interment is considered to be
+later, and of Aurignacian antiquity. Stone implements
+of Aurignacian type were disposed around the skeleton:
+in addition to these, a number of molluscan shells
+were arranged about the skull. This suggestion of
+ornament would of itself suggest the later period to
+which the skeleton is assigned. No remains of animals
+are mentioned in the accounts accessible to me.</p>
+
+<p><i>Brüx</i> (<i>Bohemia</i>). The Brüx skeleton was discovered
+in 1871. It lay some five feet beneath the
+surface in a deposit which seems to be an ancient
+one of fluviatile origin. The Biela river is not far
+from the spot. The bones were very fragmentary,
+and in particular the skull-cap has been reconstructed
+from no less than a dozen fragments. The limb bones<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>
+were also fractured. Near the skeleton, some remains
+of an Ox were found on the same level. Two feet
+above the skeleton, a stone implement, seemingly a
+Neolithic axe, was brought to light.</p>
+
+<p>The information is thus meagre in the extreme,
+and when the condition of the skull is taken into
+account, it is evident that the Brüx skeleton is not
+one upon which far-reaching arguments can be
+successfully based. The interest of the specimen
+depends above all upon the results of the careful
+analysis of its characters made by Professor Schwalbe<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>
+(1906).</p>
+
+<p><i>Brünn</i> (1871). This discovery was made at a
+depth of 4·5 metres in red löss. Close to the human
+bones lay the tusk and the shoulder-blade of a
+Mammoth. The same stratum subsequently yielded
+the skull of a young Rhinoceros (<i>R. tichorhinus</i>): some
+ribs of a Rhinoceros are scored or marked in a way
+suggestive of human activity: other ribs of the same
+kind were artificially perforated. More noteworthy,
+however, is a human figurine carved in ivory of a
+Mammoth tusk. Several hundreds of the shell of
+<i>Dentalium badense</i> lying close to the human remains
+were truncated in such a way as to suggest that they
+had once formed a necklace.</p>
+
+<p><i>Galley Hill</i> (<i>Kent</i>). The gravel-pit whence the
+skeleton was obtained invades the &lsquo;high-level terrace-gravel&rsquo;
+of the Thames valley. Such is the opinion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>
+of expert geologists (Hinton<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a>). In the gravel-pit a
+section through ten feet of gravel is exposed above
+the chalk. The bones were eight feet from the top of
+the gravel. Palaeolithic implements of a primitive
+type have been obtained from the same deposit at
+Galley Hill. No precise designation seems to have
+been assigned to them. From the published figures,
+they seem to correspond to the earlier Acheulean or
+to the Chellean type. One in particular, resembles
+the implements found at Reculver, and I have recently
+seen similar specimens which had been obtained
+by dredging off the Kentish coast near Whitstable.
+Some of the Galley Hill implements are compared
+to the high plateau forms from Ightham. These must
+be of great antiquity. Professor Rutot in 1903
+assigned the Galley Hill skeleton to a period by him
+named Mafflian. This diagnosis seems to have been
+based upon the characters of the implements. Recently
+however (1909) Professor Rutot has brought the
+skeleton down into the Strépyan epoch, which is
+much less ancient than that of Maffle.</p>
+
+<p>The associated fauna comes now into consideration.
+From the Galley Hill gravel-pit no mammalian remains
+other than the human skeleton have been reported,
+but the fauna of the &lsquo;high-level terrace&rsquo; has been
+ascertained by observations in the vicinity of Galley
+Hill as well as in other parts of the Thames basin.
+The mollusc <i>Cyrena fluminalis</i>, indicative of a sub-tropical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span>
+climate, has been found in these strata.
+As regards the mammalian fauna, it is interesting
+to compare the list given by Mr E. T. Newton in 1895,
+with that published by Mr M. A. C. Hinton in 1910
+on the basis of independent observations.</p>
+
+<table summary="Newton_list">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4"><i>Mr Newton's list</i>, 1895.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">1.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Elephas primigenius.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">2.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Hippopotamus.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">3.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros:</td>
+  <td class="tdl">species</td>
+  <td class="tdl">uncertain.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">4.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Bos.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">5.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Equus.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">6.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cervus.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">7.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Felis leo.</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="tdc">&bdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table summary="Hinton_list">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="2"><i>Mr Hinton's list</i>, 1910.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">1.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus (a more primitive form than E. primigenius).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">2.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">No Hippopotamus (this occurs later, in the Middle Terrace).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">3.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros megarhinus.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">4.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Bos: species uncertain.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">5.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Equus: species similar to the Pliocene E. stenonis.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">6.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Cervus: 3 species: one resembles the Fallow-deer (C. dama), a &lsquo;southern&rsquo; form.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">7.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Felis leo.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">8.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Sus: species uncertain: bones of limbs shew primitive features.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">9.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Canis: species uncertain.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">10.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Delphinus: species uncertain.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">11.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Trogontherium: species differing from the Pliocene form.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">12.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Various smaller rodents, such as Voles.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>No definitely &lsquo;Arctic&rsquo; mammals are recorded: the general aspect
+of the above fauna shews a strong similarity to the Pliocene fauna,
+which appears to have persisted to this epoch without much alteration
+of the various types represented.</p>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="Table_A" id="Table_A">TABLE A</a></p>
+
+<table id="p84" summary="Table_A">
+<tr>
+  <td class="td1" valign="top" rowspan="3">I<br />Classification by characters<br />of human bones<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></td>
+  <td class="td1" valign="top" rowspan="3">II<br />Example</td>
+  <td class="td1" valign="top" rowspan="2">III</td>
+  <td class="td8" colspan="2">IV</td>
+  <td class="td8" colspan="2">V</td>
+  <td class="td3" valign="top" rowspan="3">VI</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+    <td class="td5" colspan="2">Circumstances and surroundings:</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td2">Immediate surroundings</td>
+  <td class="td1" colspan="2">Associated animals</td>
+  <td class="td1" colspan="2">Name of types of associated implements</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td7">Division II</td>
+  <td class="td7">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">Subdivision <i>B</i></td>
+  <td class="td7">(1) Combe Capelle</td>
+  <td class="td4">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2">Reindeer</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2">Aurignacian</td>
+  <td class="td5">Interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(2) Galley Hill</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Alluvial drift of High Terrace<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Acheulean to ?Strépyan</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">?<br />No interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros megarhinus<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Trogontherium (Rodent)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Mimomys (Rodent)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(3) Grimaldi (Mentone)</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Mousterian ? also Aurignacian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Hyaena spelaea</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Felis spelaea</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">(Marmot in higher strata)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Subdivision <i>A</i></td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(4) La Ferrassie</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Bison priscus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(5) Pech de l'Aze</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(Head only found?)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Bison priscus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(6) Le Moustier</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Bos primigenius</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl"><i>No reindeer</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(7) La Chapelle</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Reindeer (<i>scarce</i>)</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Bison priscus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="3" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="3" valign="middle">(8) S. Brélade</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="3" valign="middle">Cave</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="3" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="3" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="3" valign="middle">?</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Bos ? sp.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros tichorhinus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(9) Krapina</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Cave (Rock-shelter)</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros merckii</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Cave Bear</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Bos primigenius</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Marmot (Arctomys)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(10) Taubach</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Alluvial Deposit<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="3" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">? Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">No interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros merckii</td>
+  <td class="tdl">? Upper Acheulean = Levallois</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Felis leo</td>
+  <td class="tdl">? Chellean</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" style="border-right: 1px solid black;">No Hippopotamus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Division II</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(11) Mauer</td>
+  <td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Alluvial deposit</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus</td>
+  <td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">None found</td>
+  <td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">No interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros etruscus<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Ursus arvernensis</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">No Hippopotamus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td2" rowspan="3" valign="middle">&bdquo;</td>
+  <td class="td2" style="text-align: left;" rowspan="3" valign="middle">(12) Trinil</td>
+  <td class="td2" rowspan="3" valign="middle">Alluvial deposit</td>
+  <td class="td2" rowspan="3" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl">Hippopotamus?</td>
+  <td class="td2" colspan="2" style="text-align: left;" rowspan="3" valign="middle">None found by Dubois</td>
+  <td class="td6" rowspan="3" valign="middle">No interment</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl">Rhinoceros sivasoudaicus</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">Other Sivalik types</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> South American remains and some others are omitted owing to insufficiency of data relating to their surroundings.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Names of fossil varieties of Rhinoceros. These are very confused. The term R. <i>leptorhinus</i> should be avoided altogether. R. <i>megarhinus</i> represents the R. <i>leptorhinus</i> of Falconer
+and Cuvier. R. <i>merckii</i> represents R. <i>hemitoechus</i> of Falconer, which is the R. <i>leptorhinus</i> of Owen and Boyd Dawkins. R. <i>tichorhinus</i> is R. <i>antiquitatis</i> of Falconer and some German writers.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> The formation of the High Terrace drift is earlier than the date of arrival of the &lsquo;Siberian&rsquo; invasion of Britain by certain Voles. Already in Pliocene times, some Voles had come
+into Britain from the south-east of Europe. But the Galley Hill man, if contemporary with the High Terrace drift, had arrived in Britain ages before the appearance of <i>Homo aurignacensis</i>
+supposed by Klaatsch to be closely allied, and to have come into Europe through Central if not Northern Asia. The &lsquo;High Terrace&rsquo; mammals have a &lsquo;Pliocene&rsquo; facies.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> The upper strata at Taubach yielded Reindeer and Mammoth. Near Weimar, Wüst says the stratigraphical positions of <i>R. merckii</i> and <i>R. antiquitatis</i> have been found inverted.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Typical Val d'Arno (Pliocene) form.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CHAPTER IV<br />
+<span style="font-size: 80%;">ASSOCIATED ANIMALS AND IMPLEMENTS</span></h2>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>B</i>
+heads the list. Then follows Subdivision <i>A</i>, and
+finally Division I will be found in the lowest place.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span>
+This order having been adopted, the remaining data
+were added in the sequence necessarily imposed upon
+them thereby.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>a</i>) In an analysis of this table the several
+columns should be considered in order. Taking that
+headed &lsquo;Immediate surroundings,&rsquo; it is evident that
+whereas most of the members of Division II were
+&lsquo;cave-men,&rsquo; 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,
+&lsquo;in the open.&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>b</i>) Passing to the &lsquo;Associated animals,&rsquo; similar
+conclusions will be formed again. Thus in the first
+place, most of the &lsquo;cave-men&rsquo; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>
+as exceptions. Moreover they have again some features
+in common, just as has been noted in respect of their
+alluvial surroundings. For the Elephant (<i>E. antiquus</i>)
+is identical in both instances. But the Rhinoceros
+of the &lsquo;high level&rsquo; 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
+<i>Rhinoceros megarhinus</i> has been considered to stand
+in what may be termed a grand-parental relation to
+that of Taubach (<i>R. merckii</i>), the <i>Rhinoceros etruscus</i>
+of the Mauer Sands representing the intervening
+generation (Gaudry<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>(i) The study of the animals found in the corresponding
+or identical <i>alluvial deposits</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span>
+instances, viz. Galley Hill, Taubach and Mauer, agreement
+is shewn in respect of the presence of <i>Elephas
+antiquus</i>, and this is absent from all the cave-deposits
+considered here [<i>v. infra</i> (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 (<i>Mimomys cantianus</i> is equally
+suggestive) of the high-level gravels, and the <i>Ursus
+arvernensis</i> of the Mauer Sands.</p>
+
+<p>The significance of these animals may be indicated
+more clearly by the following statement. If the
+history of <i>Elephas antiquus</i> 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<a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>
+(1888) placed it in a directly ancestral relation
+to the last-mentioned elephant. And though the
+two were contemporary for a space, yet <i>Elephas
+antiquus</i> 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
+<i>R. megarhinus</i> and <i>R. etruscus</i> have been found in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>
+definitely Pliocene strata. The former (<i>R. megarhinus</i>)
+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
+(<i>R. merckii</i>) is somewhat later, but of similar age
+to <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, with which it constantly
+appears. It is remarkable that the <i>R. etruscus</i>,
+though not the earliest to appear, seems yet to have
+become extinct before the older <i>R. megarhinus</i>.
+The latter was contemporary with <i>R. merckii</i>, 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
+<i>R. etruscus</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>Coming next to the &lsquo;peculiar&rsquo; animals; the
+<i>Ursus arvernensis</i> of Mauer is almost as distinctively
+&lsquo;Pliocene&rsquo; as its associate, <i>Rhinoceros etruscus</i>.
+The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable
+to these, nor to the Trogontherium (or Mimomys)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span>
+of the high-level terrace gravel. These animals are
+also strongly suggestive of the Pliocene fauna.</p>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;southern,&rsquo; as contrasted with an &lsquo;arctic&rsquo; 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 <i>Elephas antiquus</i> will
+occur there (as indeed it does).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(ii) The animals associated with the <i>cave-men</i> now
+call for consideration. The great outstanding feature<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span>
+is the constancy with which the Reindeer is found.
+This leads to a presumption that the climate was
+at least temperate rather than &lsquo;southern.&rsquo; 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 <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>Another cave, viz. the Grotte des Enfants, may
+also need reconsideration. For instance, the <i>Rhinoceros
+merckii</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span>
+bones therein or the imperfection of such as were found.
+Such caves have yielded abundant evidence in regard
+to the &lsquo;associated fauna.&rsquo; 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 (<i>E. primigenius</i>) was
+contemporaneous with the Reindeer, but was plentiful
+while the Reindeer was still rare. A similar remark
+applies to the Hairy Rhinoceros (<i>R. tichorhinus</i>), 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span>
+caves. Lastly, some weight must be attached to
+the alleged discovery at Pont Newydd in Wales, of
+Mousterian implements with remains of <i>R. merckii</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>c</i>) 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>If enquiry be made as to the significance, <i>i.e.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>In Germany, the researches of Professor Schmidt<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>
+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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span>
+sequence may be shewn most concisely if the deposits
+are compared in a tabular form as follows (Table I).</p>
+
+<p>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. <a href="#Table_A">Table A</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 <i>Rhinoceros
+merckii</i> at Krapina.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span></p>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">TABLE I.</p>
+
+<table id="p97" summary="Table_I">
+<tr>
+  <td class="td1" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Levels</td>
+  <td class="td1" colspan="2">Type of Implement</td>
+  <td class="td3" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Fauna</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td2">Ofnet</td>
+  <td class="td2">Sirgenstein</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">A.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Most superficial</td>
+  <td class="td4">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td4">Bronze</td>
+  <td class="td5" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td4">Neolithic</td>
+  <td class="td4">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td5" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">B.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">1. Intermediate</td>
+  <td class="td4">Azilian</td>
+  <td class="td4">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td5" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td4" colspan="2">Palaeolithic</td>
+  <td class="td5" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdl">2. Deepest stratum at Ofnet</td>
+  <td class="td4">Magdalenian</td>
+  <td class="td4">Magdalenian</td>
+  <td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblt">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="td9">Myodes torquatus (the Banded Lemming)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdl">3.</td>
+  <td class="td4">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td4">Solutréan</td>
+  <td class="td9" rowspan="2">Fauna of a northern character throughout:<br />with Reindeer, Mammoth, Rhinoceros<br />tichorhinus and Horse</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="tdl">4.</td>
+  <td class="td4">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td4">Aurignacian</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td2">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">5. Deepest stratum at Sirgenstein</td>
+  <td class="td2">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td2">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td8">Myodes obensis (a Siberian Lemming)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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. <a href="#Page_74">74</a>);
+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<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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>i.e.</i> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>(<i>d</i>) 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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span></p>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">TABLE II.</p>
+
+<table id="p100" summary="Table_II">
+<tr>
+  <td class="td1" colspan="4">A. Caves<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></td>
+  <td class="td2" colspan="3">B. Alluvial deposits</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td3" colspan="2">Type of Implement</td>
+  <td class="td3">Ofnet<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td>
+  <td class="td3">Sirgenstein(2)</td>
+  <td class="td4">S. Acheul (Tellier)<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
+  <td class="td3">Willendorf (Austria)<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></td>
+  <td class="td10">S. Acheul (Tellier, etc.)<a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">1.</td>
+  <td class="td7">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td7">Bronze</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">&mdash;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">Neolithic</td>
+  <td class="td6">2.</td>
+  <td class="td7">Neolithic</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">&mdash;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">Intermediate</td>
+  <td class="td6">3.</td>
+  <td class="td7">Azilian</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">&mdash;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">Palaeolithic</td>
+  <td class="td6">4.</td>
+  <td class="td7">Magdalenian</td>
+  <td class="td7">Magdalenian</td>
+  <td class="td8">Magdalenian</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">&mdash;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">5.</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">Solutréan</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">Solutréan</td>
+  <td class="td12">&mdash;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">6.</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">Aurignacian</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">Aurignacian</td>
+  <td class="td12">&mdash;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">7.</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">Mousterian</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">8.</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">Acheulean</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td5">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td6">9.</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td7">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td12">Chellean</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td3">&nbsp;</td>
+  <td class="td13">10.</td>
+  <td class="td3">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td3">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td11">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td3">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td10">&ldquo;Industrie grossière&rdquo;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> For the occurrence of Acheulean and Chellean implements in caves, v. page 98.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Schmidt, 1909.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Commont, 1908.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Obermaier and Bayer, 1909.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The next subject of enquiry is therefore that of
+the antiquity of Man as indicated by the occurrence
+of his artefacts.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>But implements of the type of Chelles have been
+found with a more definitely &lsquo;Pliocene&rsquo; form of
+elephant than those already mentioned. At S. Prest
+and at Tilloux in France, Chellean implements are
+associated with <i>Elephas meridionalis</i>, 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 <i>E. antiquus</i> distinctly approaching
+<i>E. meridionalis</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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 &ldquo;Acheulean&rdquo;
+or &ldquo;Strépyan&rdquo; are offered in the table. In the former
+instance (Acheulean) a recent writer (Mr Hinton,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span>
+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<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<table summary="Page_102">
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">A. <i>Pleistocene Period.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">(All Palaeolithic types except No. 1.)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">1.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Azilian</td>
+  <td rowspan="5" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
+         <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
+       <tr>
+         <td class="bblr">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
+       </tr>
+     </table>
+  </td>
+  <td class="tdl" rowspan="5">Types found in caves as well as in alluvial deposits.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">2.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Magdalenian</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">3.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Solutréan</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">4.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Aurignacian</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr">5.</td>
+  <td class="tdl">Mousterian</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">6.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Acheulean. Fauna of S.-E. Britain has a Pliocene aspect.
+High-level terrace of Thames valley (Hinton, 1910).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">7.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Chellean. Fauna of Continent has Pliocene affinities (Hinton, 1910).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">8.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Strépyan. Galley Hill Skeleton. High-level terrace, Thames basin (Rutot, 1911).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">9.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Mesvinian. Implements on surface of chalk-plateau, Ightham, Kent (Rutot, 1900).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">10.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Mafflian. Galley Hill skeleton (Rutot, 1903). Mauer jaw (Rutot, 1911)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">11.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Reutelian. High-level terrace of Thames basin, Rutot, 1900.
+The Reutelian implement is &ldquo;eolithic,&rdquo; and is found unchanged
+in stages assigned to the Pliocene, Miocene and
+Oligocene periods (Rutot, 1911).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="4">The duration of the Pleistocene period is estimated at about 139,000 years (Rutot, 1904).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">B. <i>Pliocene Period.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">12.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Kentian (Reutelian).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">C. <i>Miocene Period.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">13.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Cantalian (Reutelian).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">D. <i>Oligocene Period.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">14.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">Fagnian (Reutelian).</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdc" colspan="4">E. <i>Eocene Period.</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="tdr" valign="top">15.</td>
+  <td class="tdl" colspan="3">[Eoliths of Duan and other French sites: not definitely recognised in 1911 by Rutot.]</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Several results of vast importance would follow,
+should the tabulated suggestions be accepted unreservedly
+in their entirety.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span>
+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 &lsquo;similar to those
+found by Mr B. Harrison on the high plateau near
+Ightham,&rsquo;&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> 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 <i>per contra</i>
+it will not escape notice that since 1903, Professor
+Rutot has &lsquo;reduced&rsquo; the Galley Hill skeleton from
+the Mafflian to the Strépyan stage, and it is therefore
+possible that further reduction may follow.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>More primitive, and less shapely therefore, than
+the Mafflian implements, are the forms designated
+&lsquo;Reutelian.&rsquo; They are referred to the dawn of the
+Quaternary or Pleistocene period. But with these<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span>
+the initial stage of evolution seems to be reached.
+Such &lsquo;eoliths,&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>While the so-called Eocene eoliths of Duan (Eure-et-Loire)
+fail to receive acceptance (Laville<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a>, 1906),
+even at Professor Rutot's hands (1911), it is otherwise
+with those ascribed to the Oligocene period. Mr Moir<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
+of Ipswich has lately recognised prepalaeoliths
+beneath the Suffolk Crag (Newbourn) at Ipswich
+resting 011 the underlying London Clay.</p>
+
+<p>Some objections to the recognition of the so-called
+&lsquo;eoliths&rsquo; as artefacts may now be considered.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_24.jpg" width="800" height="74"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_24.jpg" id="img_24.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene time: (From Penck.)</p>
+
+<p>1. Line of oscillation of level of lowest snow-line. (Central Europe.)</p>
+
+<p>2. Localities where &lsquo;eolithic implements&rsquo; occur.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>4. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of modern Elephants.</p>
+
+<p>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. <a href="#img_25.jpg">Fig. 25</a>).</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>(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 (&lsquo;earth-creep,&rsquo; and &lsquo;foundering of drifts,&rsquo;
+Warren<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>, 1905).</p>
+
+<p>(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.</p>
+
+<p>(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 &lsquo;Oligocene&rsquo; Man is considered incredible. Moreover
+the period of time which has elapsed since the
+Oligocene period must be of enormous length.</p>
+
+<p>(4) In the last place will be mentioned criticism
+of the distribution of the eolithic type (Obermaier<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>,
+1908).</p>
+
+<p>(1) Having regard to the first of these arguments,
+the balance of evidence appears so even and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover the &lsquo;wash-tub&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>(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<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> at Dewlish (1910).</p>
+
+<p>(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<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> (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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>(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
+&lsquo;artefact&rsquo; nature of the eoliths, and the admission
+certainly weakens their case.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CHAPTER V<br />
+<span style="font-size: 80%;">HUMAN FOSSILS AND GEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY</span></h2>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span>
+of the past history of Man with the later geological
+history of the earth may be fairly anticipated.</p>
+
+<p>In Chapter IV, use was frequently made of the
+expression &lsquo;southern,&rsquo; &lsquo;temperate&rsquo; or &lsquo;sub-arctic,&rsquo;
+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 &lsquo;southern&rsquo; in
+character, in another as &lsquo;temperate,&rsquo; suggests some
+variation of climate. And the relation of the history
+of Man to the great variation of climate implied in
+the expression &lsquo;Glacial Period,&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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
+&lsquo;Ice-Age.&rsquo; Long before that idea had been formulated,
+the presence of animal remains both in cave
+and alluvial deposits was a matter of common<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>
+knowledge. The late Professor Phillips is believed
+to have been the first to make definite use of the
+terms &lsquo;pre-glacial&rsquo; and &lsquo;post-glacial&rsquo; in reference
+to the later geological formations (1855). And to
+the pre-glacial era that geologist referred most of the
+ossiferous caves and fissures.</p>
+
+<p>But in 1860, this, the accepted view, was overthrown
+by the late Dr Falconer<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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. <a href="#Page_102">102</a> supra) just
+mentioned as existing between the age to be assigned
+to the Thames river-drift upon (<i>a</i>) stratigraphical
+evidence (&lsquo;post-glacial&rsquo;), and (<i>b</i>) palaeontological
+evidence (&lsquo;pre-glacial&rsquo;).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> (1863). But such division of the
+boulder-clay leads directly to an inference of successive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span>
+periods of deposition&mdash;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 &lsquo;ground-moraine,&rsquo; 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<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>A multiplicity of glaciations demonstrated whether
+by successive &lsquo;end-moraines,&rsquo; or by a series of boulder-clays
+or &lsquo;tills,&rsquo; implies intervening &lsquo;inter-glacial&rsquo;
+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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>. Still later came the
+suggestions of Professors Mortillet, Hoernes<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> (1903),
+Penck, Obermaier<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> (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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="Table_B" id="Table_B">TABLE B</a></p>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;"><i>List of types of associated implements.</i></p>
+
+<table id="p118" summary="Table_B">
+<tr>
+  <td class="td1" valign="middle" rowspan="2">Penck's scheme<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></td>
+  <td class="td1">1908</td>
+  <td class="td1">1908</td>
+  <td class="td1">1903</td>
+  <td class="td1">1908</td>
+  <td class="td1">1908</td>
+  <td class="td3">1878</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td4">Boule<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td>
+  <td class="td4">Penck</td>
+  <td class="td4">Hoernes</td>
+  <td class="td4">Rutot</td>
+  <td class="td4">Sollas</td>
+  <td class="td5">Skertchley<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6">Postglacial <b>4</b> = with Achen and other oscillations (Penck)</td>
+  <td class="td7">Magdalenian Solutréan<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></td>
+  <td class="td8">Magdalenian</td>
+  <td class="td8">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8">Neolithic period</td>
+  <td class="td8">?</td>
+  <td class="td9">Neolithic period</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6"><b>Glacial IV</b><br />2nd Pleistocene(2) Glaciation of Boule. &ldquo;Würmian&rdquo; of Penck</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td10" valign="top">Solutréan(4)</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8">Lower Magdalenian<br />Solutréan<br />Aurignacian</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td9" valign="top">Hessle Boulder-clay</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6" valign="top"><i>Interglacial</i> <b>3</b> = Riss-Würm interval (Penck)</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />(Obermaier) Chellean</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />(warm phase)</td>
+  <td class="td11" valign="top">Mousterian</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />Upper Acheulean</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Acheulean</td>
+  <td class="td9" valign="top">Palaeoliths of the  &ldquo;modern-valley&rdquo; type. Valley-gravels of present Ouse, Cam, etc.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6" valign="top"><b>Glacial III</b><br />1st Pleistocene  Glaciation of  Boule. &ldquo;Rissian&rdquo; of Penck</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Chellean</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />(cold phase)</td>
+  <td class="td11" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Lower Acheulean<br />Chellean</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">[Chalky Boulder-clay of Hoxne]</td>
+  <td class="td9" valign="top">Purple Boulder-clay</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6" valign="top"><i>Interglacial</i> <b>2</b> = Mindel-Riss interval (Penck)</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Acheulean<br />Obellean</td>
+  <td class="td10" valign="top">Solutréan</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Strépyan<br />Mesvinian<br />Mafflean</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td9" valign="top">Palaeoliths of  &ldquo;ancient-valley&rdquo; type. ?Flood-gravels. Valleys do not correspond to modern rivers</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6" valign="top"><b>Glacial II</b><br />&ldquo;Mindelian&rdquo; of Penck</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td9" valign="top">Chalky Boulder-clay</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td6" valign="top"><i>Interglacial</i> <b>1</b> = Günz-Mindel interval (Penck)</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />Chellean</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td9" valign="top">Brandon beds with implements</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+  <td class="td13" valign="top"><b>Glacial I</b><br />&ldquo;Günzian&rdquo; of Penck</td>
+  <td class="td4" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td4" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td4" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td4" valign="top">&mdash;</td>
+  <td class="td4" valign="top">?</td>
+  <td class="td5" valign="top">Cromer Till. Later than Forest-Bed</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Penck postulates four glaciations, all &ldquo;pleistocene.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Boule recognises two pleistocene glaciations (seemingly Nos. III and IV of Penck), and one pliocene glaciation. The latter is not indicated in the Table.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> 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.</p>
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>
+combination commonly regarded as indicative of the
+southern type (viz. <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros
+merckii</i>, and <i>Hippopotamus major</i>) 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, <i>e.g.</i> the
+Swiss Lignites of Dürnten, etc.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_25.jpg" width="800" height="64"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_25.jpg" id="img_25.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 25. Chart of the oscillations of the snow-level in Central Europe during the Pleistocene
+period. (From Penck.)</p>
+
+<p>In the uppermost space. <i>N</i> Neolithic Age. <i>Ma</i> Magdalenian. <i>Sol</i> Solutréan.
+<i>Günz</i>, <i>Mindel</i>, <i>Riss</i>, <i>Würm</i>, denote the several glacial phases.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;Pliocene
+glaciation,&rsquo; appearing in the latter, is hardly in
+question).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Much diligence has been shewn in the various
+attempts to decide between these, the two great
+alternatives. (The view of Professor Hoernes, who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span>
+assigns the Mousterian types to the first inter-glacial
+period of Penck, has received so little support as to
+render it negligible here.)</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(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 &lsquo;centred&rsquo; on a
+glacial period but that it probably began somewhat
+earlier and lasted rather longer than that glacial
+period, whichever it might be.</p>
+
+<p>(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 &lsquo;southern fauna.&rsquo;</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>
+last great glaciation, whether we term this the fourth
+(with Professor Penck), or the third, with Professor
+Boule.</p>
+
+<p>(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. <span class="smcap">IV</span>
+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>i.e.</i> the Riss-Würm) inter-glacial period. But
+it belongs to Penck's glaciation No. <span class="smcap">IV</span>, not to
+No. <span class="smcap">III</span>.</p>
+
+<p>(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. <span class="smcap">IV</span>, Boule's No. <span class="smcap">III</span>).</p>
+
+<p>The remaining arguments are directed against
+the position assigned by Professor Penck to the
+Mousterian implements.</p>
+
+<p>(5) Professor Penck admits that the epoch of
+the Mousterian type was glacial, and he recognises<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span>
+that it was preceded by a definitely inter-glacial
+epoch, with a southern fauna. But by selecting
+his No. <span class="smcap">III</span> 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 &lsquo;southern&rsquo; fauna. Professor Penck
+believes that the &lsquo;southern&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;southern fauna&rsquo; at
+Taubach (<i>v. ante</i> Chapters II and III). If the implements
+are of Mousterian type, they support Professor
+Penck's view, for the &lsquo;warm Mousterian&rsquo; sought by
+him will thus be found: but if the type is Chellean,
+the arguments of Professor Boule are notably reinforced.</p>
+
+<p>(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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span>
+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>i.e.</i> its typical implements)
+is very extensive and quite definite. In
+effect, the type of Solutré is assigned to the newer
+(<i>jüngerer</i>) 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> (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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span>
+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 &lsquo;northern&rsquo;
+and &lsquo;southern&rsquo; animals in a single deposit, has been
+demonstrated not infrequently, as in Italy also (Torre
+della Scalea, Cosenza). (iii) Professor Boyd Dawkins<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>
+(1910) insists upon the occurrence of Chellean,
+Acheulean, and Mousterian implements in one and
+the same British river deposit.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2>CHAPTER VI<br />
+<span style="font-size: 80%;">HUMAN EVOLUTION IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCOVERIES</span></h2>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span>
+find ourselves definitely on the neutral ground between
+the territories of man and ape, though even here on
+the human side of that zone.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 (<i>P.E.</i> of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_26.jpg" width="600" height="419"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_26.jpg" id="img_26.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 26. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a common dimension, viz. the
+line <i>Gl</i>&mdash;<i>Op</i>, representing a base-line of the brain-case. <i>Pe</i>, Pithecanthropus.
+<i>Papua</i>, a New Guinea native. <i>Hl</i>, <i>Sm</i>, <i>At</i> are from skulls of monkeys. (After
+Dubois.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>But Mr Cross used a much more delicate method,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_27.jpg" width="228" height="800"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_27.jpg" id="img_27.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 27. (From Cross.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>B. But if in one of the very earliest of those
+stages, a human form is discovered wherein the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]<br />[Pg 132]</a></span>
+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 &lsquo;abnormal&rsquo; or &lsquo;isolated,&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(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
+&lsquo;human period,&rsquo; suggested by eoliths for which
+Pliocene, Miocene, and even Oligocene antiquity is
+claimed, will provide more than this argument<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>
+demands. The suggestion that a flint-chipping
+precursor of Man existed in Miocene time was made
+as long ago as 1878 by Gaudry<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a>.</p>
+
+<p>(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 &lsquo;ancestral&rsquo;
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>(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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_28.jpg" width="397" height="500"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_28.jpg" id="img_28.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 28. Various thigh-bones arranged to shew the alleged similarity
+between <i>A</i> Orang-utan and <i>B</i> Aurignac man, as also between
+<i>C</i> Neanderthal and <i>D</i> Gorilla. <i>A</i> and <i>B</i>, while resembling each
+other, are to be contrasted with <i>C</i> and <i>D</i>. They are referred to
+as the A/O and N/G groups. (From Klaatsch.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The further development of the story includes
+the following propositions. The more primitive and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>The hypothesis has been severely handled, by
+none more trenchantly than by Professor Keith<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>. 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>i.e.</i> the anatomy of parts other
+than the skeleton) the difficulties are very apparent.</p>
+
+<p>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, &lsquo;Die Neanderthalrasse besitzt zahlreiche australoide
+Anklänge&rsquo;). Again in earlier days, Professor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>Having regard to such facts and to such oscillations
+of opinion, it is not surprising that this recent
+attempt to demonstrate a &lsquo;diphyletic&rsquo; or &lsquo;polyphyletic&rsquo;
+mode of human descent should fail to convince
+most of those competent to pronounce upon its merits.</p>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;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.&rsquo; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span>
+Cossar Ewart and Osborn (and Professor
+Ridgeway's name should be added to theirs) agree
+that proofs have been obtained of the &lsquo;multiple
+nature of horse evolution&rsquo; (Osborn). If we pass to
+other but allied animals, we may notice that coarser
+and finer types of Hipparion (<i>H. crassum</i> and
+<i>H. gracile)</i> have been contrasted with each other.
+A step further brings us to the Peat-hog problem
+(<i>Torf-Schwein Frage</i> 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 <i>E. antiquus</i> was their stoutness in
+comparison with those of <i>E. primigenius</i>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>D. In commenting upon the hypothesis expounded
+by Professor Klaatsch, mention was made
+of its bearing upon the status of the Cro-Magnon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span>
+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<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a>, 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>i.e.</i> osteological study.</p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a>. The latter declares<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(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 &lsquo;Neanderthaloid&rsquo; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>
+Neanderthal type of man was consequent on a change
+in the activity of the pituitary gland.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(ii) Dr Sera<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> (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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>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<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>,
+which established the Neanderthal type as a distinct
+species (<i>Homo primigenius</i>) 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;glacial conditions.&rsquo; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3><i>Conclusion.</i></h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The impossibility of summing up in favour of one
+comprehensive scheme will be acknowledged. More<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>It is tempting to look back to the time of the
+publication of Sir Charles Lyell's &lsquo;Antiquity of Man.&rsquo;
+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 &lsquo;would appear quite insignificant
+in duration.&rsquo; As to the course of human
+evolution, it was possible even at that early date to
+quote Huxley's opinion &lsquo;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.&rsquo;</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>
+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 &lsquo;fossil
+man of Denise.&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>
+of varying degrees of physiological activity, of successful
+(though at first aberrant) mutations all
+demand attention in the present state of knowledge.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span></p>
+
+<h3>APPENDIX</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(A) A short account of the &lsquo;La Quina&rsquo; skeleton has now
+appeared (in &lsquo;L'Anthropologie,&rsquo; 1911, No. 6, p. 730).</p>
+
+<p>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).</p>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;inferior Mousterian&rsquo; level.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>(B) The &lsquo;sub-boulder-clay&rsquo; 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. <a href="#img_29.jpg">fig. 29</a>).</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Its interest depends largely upon the circumstances of its
+surroundings. It was placed beneath about four feet of &lsquo;boulder-clay,&rsquo;
+embedded partly in this and, to a much smaller extent, in
+the underlying middle-glacial sand which the bones just entered.</p>
+
+<p>There is some evidence that the surface on which the bones
+lay was at one time exposed as an old &lsquo;land-surface.&rsquo; 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.</p>
+
+<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span>
+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 &lsquo;sub-boulder-clay&rsquo;
+man.</p>
+
+<p>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 &lsquo;land-surface.&rsquo;</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter">
+     <img src="images/img_29.jpg" width="508" height="600"
+        alt="see caption"
+        title="see caption" />
+        <a name="img_29.jpg" id="img_29.jpg"></a>
+<p class="caption">Fig. 29. Human skeleton found beneath Boulder-clay near Ipswich in 1911.
+(From the drawing prepared by Professor Keith, and published in the
+<i>East Anglian Daily Times</i>. Reproduced with permission.)</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span></p>
+
+<h3>REFERENCES TO LITERATURE</h3>
+
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER I</p>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Dubois, 1894. Pithecanthropus, ein Übergangsform, &amp;c.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Blanckenhorn, 1910. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Band 42, S.
+337.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Schwalbe, 1899. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.
+From 1899 onwards.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Berry, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
+<span class="smcap">XXXI.</span> Part 1. 1910.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Cross, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
+<span class="smcap">XXXI.</span> Part 1. 1910.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Schoetensack, 1908. Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Keith, 1911. Lancet, March 18, 1911, abstract of the Hunterian
+Lectures.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Dubois, 1896. Anatomischer Anzeiger. Band <span class="smcap">XII.</span> S. 15.</p></div>
+
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTERS II AND III</p>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Avebury (Lubbock), 1868. International Congress for Prehistoric
+Archaeology.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Turner, 1864 (quoting Busk). Quarterly Journal of Science,
+Oct. 1864, p. 760.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Nehring, 1895. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1895, S. 338.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Kramberger, 1899. Mittheilungen der anthropologischen
+Gesellschaft zu Wien. &ldquo;Der Mensch von Krapina.&rdquo; Wiesbaden,
+1906.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Marett, Archaeologia, 1911; also Keith, 1911. Nature, May
+25, 1911. Keith and Knowles, Journal of Anatomy, 1911.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Boule, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XIX.</span> p. 519.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Klaatsch and Hauser, 1908. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band
+35, 1909, p. 287.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Peyrony (and Capitan), 1909-1910. Bulletins de la Société
+d'Anthropologie de Paris, Jan. 20, 1910.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Sollas, 1907. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
+Vol. 199 <span class="smcap">B</span>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Sera, 1909. Atti della Società romana di Antropologia, xv.
+fasc. <span class="smcap">II.</span></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Verner, 1910. Ann. Rep. Hunterian Museum. R.C.S.
+London. Saturday Review, Sep. 16, 1911, and five following
+numbers.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Verneau, 1906. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XVII.</span></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Lehmann-Nitsche, 1907. Rivista del Museo de la Plata, <span class="smcap">XIV.</span>
+1907.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Lehmann-Nitsche, 1909. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift,
+Jena, <span class="smcap">VIII.</span> 42.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Klaatsch, 1909. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, <span class="smcap">I.</span></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Newton, 1895. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,
+August, 1895.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Schwalbe, 1906. &ldquo;Der Schädel von Brüx.&rdquo; Zeitsch. für Morphologie
+und Anthropologie.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Hinton, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association.
+Vol. <span class="smcap">XXI.</span> Part 10. 1910.</p></div>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER IV</p>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Gaudry, 1888. Les ancêtres de nos animaux.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Schmidt, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, S. 62,
+1909.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Commont, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XIX.</span> p. 527.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Obermaier and Bayer, 1909. Korrespondenzblatt der Wiener
+anthropologischen Gesellschaft, <span class="smcap">XL.</span> 9/12.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Rutot, 1900. Congrès international d'Archéologie préhistorique.
+Paris, 1900.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><span class="label">[31]</span> Rutot, 1904, ?1903. Quoted in Schwalbe 1906. &ldquo;Vorgeschichte,
+usw.&rdquo; Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><span class="label">[31]</span> Rutot, 1911. Revue de l'Université. Brussels, 1911.</p></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Penck, 1908. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Band <span class="smcap">XL.</span> S. 390.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Laville, 1910. Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris,
+1910.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Moir, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, July 16,
+1910. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 1911.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Warren, 1905. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
+Vol. <span class="smcap">XXXV.</span>, 1905, p. 337.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Boule, 1905. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XVI.</span> &ldquo;Sur l'origine des
+Eolithes.&rdquo;</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Obermaier, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XIX.</span> p. 613 (abstract),
+also p. 460 (abstract).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Grist, 1910. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
+Vol. <span class="smcap">XL.</span> 1910, p. 192.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Sturge, 1909. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, January 1909
+(published in 1911).</p></div>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER V</p>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Falconer. 1865. Collected Memoirs. Vol. <span class="smcap">II.</span> p. 587.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> Geikie, A. 1863. Text-book of Geology, 1903, p. 1312 and
+footnote <i>ibidem</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Skertchley, 1878. The Fenland, p. 551.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Boule, 1888. Revue d'Anthropologie, &ldquo;Essai de stratigraphie
+humaine.&rdquo;</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Hoernes, 1903. Urgeschichte des Menschen. (2nd Edn., 1908.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Obermaier, 1909. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XX.</span> p. 521.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Sollas, 1908. Science Progress in the XXth Century, &ldquo;Palaeolithic
+Man.&rdquo; (Reprinted in book-form, 1911.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Boyd Dawkins, 1910. Huxley Lecture. Royal Anthropological
+Institute, 1911.</p></div>
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER VI</p>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Gaudry, 1878. Mammifères tertiaires.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Klaatsch, 1909. Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Band <span class="smcap">I.</span></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Keith, 1911. Nature, Feb. 16, 1911 ... also Dec. 15, 1910.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Schliz, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, Ss. 239 et seq.
+&ldquo;Die vorgeschichtlichen Schädeltypen der deutschen Länder.&rdquo;</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la
+Etnologia, <span class="smcap">XL.</span> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Sera, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la Etnologia, <span class="smcap">XL.</span>
+fasc. 3/4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Schwalbe, 1906. &ldquo;Vorgeschichte des Menschen,&rdquo; Zeitschrift
+für Morphologie und Anthropologie.</p></div>
+
+<h3><i>Recent publications containing a summary of the latest discoveries.</i></h3>
+
+<p>Birkner. Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns. Bd <span class="smcap">XVII.</span> 3/4. 1909.</p>
+
+<p>Branco. Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, 1910.</p>
+
+<p>Buttel-Reepen. Aus dem Werdegang der Menschheit. 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Giuffrida-Ruggeri. &ldquo;Applicazioni, &amp;c.&rdquo; Monitore Zoologico
+Italiano. No. 2. 1910. Rivista d'Italia. Agosto, 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Keith. Hunterian Lectures, 1911. Ancient types of Mankind, 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Kohlbrugge. Die morphologische Abstammung des Menschen, 1908.</p>
+
+<p>Lankester. The Kingdom of Man. 1906.</p>
+
+<p>Leche. Der Mensch. 1911.</p>
+
+<p>McCurdy. &ldquo;The Antiquity of Man in Europe.&rdquo; Smithsonian
+Report (1909), p. 531. 1910.</p>
+
+<p>Read and Smith, R. A. Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone
+Age. British Museum, 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Rutot. Revue de l'Université. Bruxelles, January 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Schwalbe. Darwin and Modern Science (Centenary volume), Cambridge, 1909.</p>
+
+<p>Sollas. Palaeolithic Man. (Cf. No. 46 supra.) 1911.</p>
+
+<p>Spulski. Zentralblatt für Zoologie. Band 17. Nos. 3/4. 1910.</p>
+
+<p>Wright. Hunterian Lectures, Royal College of Surgeons, 1907.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span></p>
+
+<h3>INDEX</h3>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Acheulean type of implement, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>; <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Acheul">S. Acheul</a></li>
+<li>Acromegaly, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
+<li>Adloff, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>Ameghino, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Andalusia, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
+<li>Andaman islands, aborigines of, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
+<li>Anthony, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
+<li><a name="Ape" id="Ape">Anthropoid Ape</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Gorilla">Gorilla</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#Orang">Orang-utan</a>), <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
+<li>Arctomys, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
+<li>Atlas vertebra, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
+<li>Aurignac, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>; implements of the type of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>; skeleton from,
+<a href="#Page_135">135&ndash;138</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>; <i>v. also</i> <a href="#aurignacensis"><i>Homo aurignacensis hauseri</i></a></li>
+<li>Australian aborigines, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
+<li>Avebury, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Badger, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
+<li>Baradero, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Bayer, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
+<li>Berry, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li>
+<li>Bison <i>priscus</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>; (species unknown), <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
+<li>Blanckenhorn (on Trinil strata), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
+<li>Bos (? species), <a href="#Page_72">72</a>; <a name="Bos" id="Bos"><i>primigenius</i></a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Urus">Urus</a>), <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li>
+<li>Boulder-clay, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
+<li>Boule, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
+<li>Brain, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37&ndash;39</a></li>
+<li>Brain-case (as distinct from the face), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60&ndash;62</a></li>
+<li>Branco, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
+<li>Breuil, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li>
+<li>Brow-ridges, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
+<li>Brückner, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
+<li>Brünn, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
+<li>Brüx, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>; strata, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
+<li>Bury S. Edmunds, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
+<li>Bush Race (South African aborigines), <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
+<li>Busk, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Canine fossa (of face), <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
+<li>Cave Bear, <i>v.</i> Ursus</li>
+<li>Cave Hyaena, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
+<li><a name="Cervidae" id="Cervidae">Cervidae</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Stag">Stag</a>), <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
+<li>Chelles, implements, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
+<li>Classification of human fossil remains, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>; also <a href="#Table_A">Table A</a></li>
+<li>Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
+<li>Commont, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
+<li>Corrèze (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Chapelle">La Chapelle</a>), <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
+<li>Cranial base, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
+<li>Croll, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
+<li>Cro-Magnon, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
+<li>Cromer, forest-bed fauna, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
+<li>Cross, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130&ndash;132</a> (diagram, p. <a href="#Page_131">131</a>)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span></li>
+<li>Cyrena <i>fluminalis</i>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Dawkins, Boyd, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
+<li>de Bohun, château, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
+<li>Dénise, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>Dewlish, eoliths from, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
+<li>Dolichocephalic proportions of skull, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
+<li>Dordogne, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#mousteriensis"><i>H. mousteriensis hauseri</i></a></li>
+<li>Duan, Eocene eoliths, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
+<li>Dubois, references under <a href="#Pithecanthropus"><i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i></a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Elephas <i>antiquus</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88&ndash;90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>; <i>meridionalis</i>,
+<a href="#Page_101">101</a>,  <a href="#Page_109">109</a>; <i>primigenius</i> <i>v.</i> <a href="#Mammoth">Mammoth</a></li>
+<li>Engis, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>Eocene period, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
+<li>Eoliths, <a href="#Page_106">106&ndash;111</a></li>
+<li>Erect attitude, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Falconer, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
+<li><a name="Quarry" id="Quarry">Forbes Quarry</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Gibraltar">Gibraltar</a>), <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46&ndash;49</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
+<li>Forest-bed, <i>v.</i> Cromer</li>
+<li>Frizzi, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><a name="Galley" id="Galley">Galley Hill</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>; gravel pit, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>; skeleton, <a href="#Page_56">56&ndash;59</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130&ndash;132</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
+<li>Gaudry, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
+<li>Geikie, Sir A., <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
+<li>Geikie, J., <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
+<li>Germany, caves in, <a href="#Page_95">95&ndash;98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
+<li>Ghilain, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
+<li><a name="Gibraltar" id="Gibraltar">Gibraltar</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Quarry">Forbes Quarry</a>), <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46&ndash;49</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143&ndash;144</a></li>
+<li>Giuffrida-Ruggeri, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
+<li><a name="Gorilla" id="Gorilla">Gorilla</a> (<i>v.</i> <a href="#Ape">Anthropoid Ape</a>), <a href="#Page_136">136&ndash;138</a></li>
+<li><a name="Grimaldi" id="Grimaldi">Grimaldi</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Enfants">Grotte des Enfants</a>), <a href="#Page_50">50&ndash;52</a></li>
+<li><a name="Enfants" id="Enfants">Grotte des Enfants</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76&ndash;79</a></li>
+<li>Grotte du Prince, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
+<li>Günz, glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Hauser, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>: <i>v.</i> <a href="#Homo">Homo</a></li>
+<li>Heidelberg, <i>v.</i> <a href="#heidelbergensis"><i>Homo heidelbergensis</i></a></li>
+<li>High-level terrace gravels (of Thames), <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
+<li>Hinton, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101&ndash;104</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
+<li>Hippopotamus, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
+<li>Hoernes, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
+<li><a name="Homo" id="Homo">Homo</a> <a name="aurignacensis" id="aurignacensis"><i>aurignacensis hauseri</i></a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135&ndash;138</a>; <i>fossilis</i>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;
+<a name="heidelbergensis" id="heidelbergensis"><i>heidelbergensis</i></a>, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10&ndash;16</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41&ndash;43</a>; <a name="mousteriensis" id="mousteriensis"><i>mousteriensis
+hauseri</i></a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39&ndash;45</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>; <i>neogaeus</i>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53&ndash;55</a>; <i>primigenius</i>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
+<li>Horse, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
+<li>Huxley, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Ibex, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
+<li>Implements, sequence of, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
+<li>Interglacial phases, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a>, <a href="#Table_B">Table B</a></li>
+<li>Ipswich skeleton, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151&ndash;152</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Jalón river (Aragon) implements, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
+<li>Jawbone, <a href="#Page_11">11&ndash;16</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29&ndash;31</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41&ndash;43</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
+<li>Jersey, <i>v.</i> <a href="#Brelade">S. Brélade</a></li>
+<li>Julien, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Keith, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
+<li>Klaatsch, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>; <i>diphyletic theory</i>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span></li>
+<li>Kramberger, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>Krapina, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24&ndash;31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68&ndash;71</a>; <i>fauna</i>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><a name="Chapelle" id="Chapelle">La Chapelle-aux-Saints</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33&ndash;39</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
+<li>La Ferrassie, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
+<li>Laloy, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>La Naulette, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, and <a href="#img_14.jpg">fig. 14</a></li>
+<li>La Quina, preface, <a href="#Page_vi">vi</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li>
+<li>Laville, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
+<li>Lehmann-Nitsche, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Le Mas d'Azil, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li>
+<li>Le Moustier, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>; <i>cave</i>, <a href="#Page_73">73&ndash;75</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Mousterian">Mousterian</a></li>
+<li>Leontiasis <i>ossea</i>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li>
+<li>Levallois, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
+<li>Limb bones, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
+<li>Löss, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>; in Lower Austria, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
+<li>Lyell, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Macnamara, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
+<li>Maffle, implements of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
+<li>Magdalenian period, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
+<li>Malarnaud, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
+<li><a name="Mammoth" id="Mammoth">Mammoth</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
+<li>Manouvrier, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
+<li>Marett, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>Marmot, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
+<li>Mastoid process, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
+<li>Mauer, <i>v. also</i> <a href="#heidelbergensis"><i>H. heidelbergensis</i></a>, <a href="#Page_65">65&ndash;66</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>Mentone, <i>v.</i> <a href="#Grimaldi">Grimaldi</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#Enfants">Grotte des Enfants</a></li>
+<li><a name="Mimomys" id="Mimomys">Mimomys</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
+<li>Mindel, glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
+<li>Miocene period, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Moir, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
+<li>Monte Hermoso, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Morlot, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
+<li>Mortillet, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
+<li><a name="Mousterian" id="Mousterian">Mousterian period</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121&ndash;125</a>; <i>types of implement of</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94&ndash;98</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
+<li>Munck, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
+<li>Mural decorative art in caves, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Neanderthal, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34&ndash;36</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131&ndash;138</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>Negroid characters, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
+<li>Nehring, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
+<li>Neolithic implements, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
+<li>Newton, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
+<li>New World, <i>v.</i> <a href="#America">S. America</a></li>
+<li>Nicolle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>Northfleet, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>: <i>v.</i> <a href="#Galley">Galley Hill</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Obermaier, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
+<li>Ofnet, <a href="#Page_96">96&ndash;98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
+<li>Oligocene period, implements in, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li>
+<li><a name="Orang" id="Orang">Orang-utan</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136&ndash;138</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Ape">Anthropoid Ape</a></li>
+<li>Ostiaks, cranial form, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Pech de l'Aze, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
+<li>Penck, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116&ndash;124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
+<li>Peyrony, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
+<li><a name="Pithecanthropus" id="Pithecanthropus"><i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i></a>, <a href="#Page_1">1&ndash;9</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63&ndash;65</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
+<li>Pituitary gland and secretion, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li>
+<li>Pleistocene mammals and period, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>
+<li>Pliocene strata, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Prestwich, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
+<li>Prince of Monaco, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
+<li>Prognathism, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
+<li>Pruner-Bey, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
+<li>Pygmy types of mankind, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Ramsay, <a href="#Page_115">115</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span></li>
+<li>Reindeer, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73&ndash;75</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
+<li>Rhinoceros <i>etruscus</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87&ndash;89</a>; <i>megarhinus</i>, <a href="#Page_87">87&ndash;89</a>; <i>merckii</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>,
+<a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>; <i>tichorhinus</i>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
+<li>Riss, glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
+<li>River-drift, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
+<li>Ronda, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
+<li>Roth, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
+<li>Rutot, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102&ndash;107</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><a name="Acheul" id="Acheul">S. Acheul</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
+<li><a name="Brelade" id="Brelade">S. Brélade</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Table_A">Table A</a></li>
+<li>Saporta, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
+<li>Schliz, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
+<li>Schmidt, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
+<li>Schoetensack, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
+<li>Schwalbe, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
+<li>Scott, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Sera, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46&ndash;48</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142&ndash;146</a></li>
+<li>Sinel, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>Sirgenstein, <a href="#Page_96">96&ndash;98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
+<li>Skeletons, contracted position of, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
+<li>Skertchley, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
+<li>Sollas, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
+<li>Solutré-period and implements of, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
+<li><a name="America" id="America">South America</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52&ndash;55</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79&ndash;81</a></li>
+<li>Southern fauna, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
+<li>Spy cave-men, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
+<li><a name="Stag" id="Stag">Stag</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Cervidae">Cervidae</a></li>
+<li>Stature, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
+<li>Steinmann, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Stone implements, value in evidence, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
+<li>Strépy, implements of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
+<li>Sturge, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
+<li>Suidae, <i>v.</i> Swine</li>
+<li>Swine, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Taubach, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21&ndash;23</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>; <i>fauna</i>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>; <i>implements</i>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
+<li>Teeth, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21&ndash;23</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29&ndash;31</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
+<li>Tertiary mollusca, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
+<li>Tetraprothomo, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
+<li>Thames gravels, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
+<li>Tilloux, implements and fauna of, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
+<li>Tornqvist, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
+<li>Trinil, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <i>v. also</i>  <a href="#Pithecanthropus"><i>P. erectus</i></a></li>
+<li>Trogontherium, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
+<li>Turner, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Ursus <i>arctos</i>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>; <i>arvernensis</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>; <i>deningeri</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;
+<i>spelaeus</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li>
+<li><a name="Urus" id="Urus">Urus</a>, <i>v.</i>  <a href="#Bos"><i>Bos primigenius</i></a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Venezuela, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
+<li>Verneau, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
+<li>Verner, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
+<li>Voles, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>; <i>v.</i> <a href="#Mimomys">Mimomys</a></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li>Walkhoff, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
+<li>Warren, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li>
+<li>Weiss, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
+<li>Wildkirchli, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
+<li>Wolf, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
+<li>Würm: glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
+<li>Württemburg, caverns of, <a href="#Page_95">95&ndash;98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<hr class="hr95" />
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.</p>
+
+<hr class="hr95" />
+
+<p class="title"><span style="font-size: 150%;">THE<br />CAMBRIDGE MANUALS</span><br />
+<span style="font-size: 125%;">OF SCIENCE AND LITERATURE</span></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p style="border: 1px solid black;">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.</p>
+
+<p class="title" style="font-size: 1.25em;">80 VOLUMES NOW READY</p>
+
+<p class="u">HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>42 Ancient Assyria. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.</p>
+
+<p>51 Ancient Babylonia. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.</p>
+
+<p>40 A History of Civilization in Palestine. By Prof. R. A. S.
+Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
+
+<p>78 The Peoples of India. By J. D. Anderson, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>49 China and the Manchus. By Prof. H. A. Giles, LL.D.</p>
+
+<p>79 The Evolution of Modern Japan. By J. H. Longford.</p>
+
+<p>43 The Civilization of Ancient Mexico. By Lewis Spence.</p>
+
+<p>60 The Vikings. By Prof. Allen Mawer, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>24 New Zealand. By the Hon. Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G.,
+LL.D., and J. Logan Stout, LL.B. (N.Z.).</p>
+
+<p>76 Naval Warfare. By J. R. Thursfield, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>15 The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church. By A.
+Hamilton Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
+
+<p>16 The Historical Growth of the English Parish Church. By
+A. Hamilton Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
+
+<p>68 English Monasteries. By A. H. Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
+
+<p>50 Brasses. By J. S. M. Ward, B.A., F.R.Hist.S.</p>
+
+<p>59 Ancient Stained and Painted Glass. By F. S. Eden.</p>
+
+<p>80 A Grammar of Heraldry. By W. H. St J. Hope, Litt.D.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">ECONOMICS</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>70 Copartnership in Industry. By C. R. Fay, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>6 Cash and Credit. By D. A. Barker.</p>
+
+<p>67 The Theory of Money. By D. A. Barker.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">LITERARY HISTORY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>8 The Early Religious Poetry of the Hebrews. By the Rev.
+E. G. King, D.D.</p>
+
+<p>21 The Early Religious Poetry of Persia. By the Rev. Prof.
+J. Hope Moulton, D.D., D.Theol. (Berlin).</p>
+
+<p>9 The History of the English Bible. By John Brown, D.D.</p>
+
+<p>12 English Dialects from the Eighth Century to the Present
+Day. By W. W. Skeat, Litt.D., D.C.L., F.B.A.</p>
+
+<p>22 King Arthur in History and Legend. By Prof. W. Lewis
+Jones, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>54 The Icelandic Sagas. By W. A. Craigie, LL.D.</p>
+
+<p>23 Greek Tragedy. By J. T. Sheppard, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>33 The Ballad in Literature. By T. F. Henderson.</p>
+
+<p>37 Goethe and the Twentieth Century. By Prof. J. G.
+Robertson, M.A., Ph.D.</p>
+
+<p>39 The Troubadours. By the Rev. H. J. Chaytor, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>66 Mysticism in English Literature. By Miss C. F. E.
+Spurgeon.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>4 The Idea of God in Early Religions. By Dr F. B. Jevons.</p>
+
+<p>57 Comparative Religion. By Dr F. B. Jevons.</p>
+
+<p>69 Plato: Moral and Political Ideals. By Mrs J. Adam.</p>
+
+<p>26 The Moral Life and Moral Worth. By Prof. Sorley, Litt.D.</p>
+
+<p>3 The English Puritans. By John Brown, D.D.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>41 Methodism. By Rev. H. B. Workman, D.Lit.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">EDUCATION</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>38 Life in the Medieval University. By R. S. Rait, M.A.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">LAW</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>13 The Administration of Justice in Criminal Matters (in
+England and Wales). By G. Glover Alexander, M.A.,
+LL.M.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">BIOLOGY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>1 The Coming of Evolution. By Prof. J. W. Judd, C.B., F.R.S.</p>
+
+<p>2 Heredity in the Light of Recent Research. By L. Doncaster,
+M.A.</p>
+
+<p>25 Primitive Animals. By Geoffrey Smith, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>73 The Life-story of Insects. By Prof. G. H. Carpenter.</p>
+
+<p>48 The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. By J. S. Huxley,
+B.A.</p>
+
+<p>27 Life in the Sea. By James Johnstone, B.Sc.</p>
+
+<p>75 Pearls. By Prof. W. J. Dakin.</p>
+
+<p>28 The Migration of Birds. By T. A. Coward.</p>
+
+<p>36 Spiders. By C. Warburton, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>61 Bees and Wasps. By O. H. Latter, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>46 House Flies. By C. G. Hewitt, D.Sc.</p>
+
+<p>32 Earthworms and their Allies. By F. E. Beddard, F.R.S.</p>
+
+<p>74 The Flea. By H. Russell.</p>
+
+<p>64 The Wanderings of Animals. By H. F. Gadow, F.R.S.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">ANTHROPOLOGY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>20 The Wanderings of Peoples. By Dr A. C. Haddon, F.R.S.</p>
+
+<p>29 Prehistoric Man. By Dr W. L. H. Duckworth.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">GEOLOGY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>35 Rocks and their Origins. By Prof. Grenville A. J. Cole.</p>
+
+<p>44 The Work of Rain and Rivers. By T. G. Bonney, Sc.D.</p>
+
+<p>7 The Natural History of Coal. By Dr E. A. Newell Arber.</p>
+
+<p>30 The Natural History of Clay. By Alfred B. Searle.</p>
+
+<p>34 The Origin of Earthquakes. By C. Davison, Sc.D., F.G.S.</p>
+
+<p>62 Submerged Forests. By Clement Reid, F.R.S.</p>
+
+<p>72 The Fertility of the Soil. By E. J. Russell, D.Sc.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">BOTANY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>5 Plant-Animals: a Study in Symbiosis. By Prof. F. W.
+Keeble.</p>
+
+<p>10 Plant-Life on Land. By Prof. F. O. Bower, Sc.D., F.R.S.</p>
+
+<p>19 Links with the Past in the Plant-World. By Prof. A. C.
+Seward, F.R.S.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">PHYSICS</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>52 The Earth. By Prof. J. H. Poynting, F.R.S.</p>
+
+<p>53 The Atmosphere. By A. J. Berry, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>65 Beyond the Atom. By John Cox, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>55 The Physical Basis of Music. By A. Wood, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>71 Natural Sources of Energy. By Prof. A. H. Gibson, D.Sc.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">PSYCHOLOGY</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>14 An Introduction to Experimental Psychology. By Dr C. S.
+Myers.</p>
+
+<p>45 The Psychology of Insanity. By Bernard Hart, M.D.</p>
+
+<p>77 The Beautiful. By Vernon Lee.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p class="u">INDUSTRIAL AND MECHANICAL SCIENCE</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+
+<p>31 The Modern Locomotive. By C. Edgar Allen, A.M.I.Mech.E.</p>
+
+<p>56 The Modern Warship. By E. L. Attwood.</p>
+
+<p>17 Aerial Locomotion. By E. H. Harper, M.A., and Allan
+E. Ferguson, B.Sc.</p>
+
+<p>18 Electricity in Locomotion. By A. G. Whyte, B.Sc.</p>
+
+<p>63 Wireless Telegraphy. By Prof. C. L. Fortescue, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>58 The Story of a Loaf of Bread. By Prof. T. B. Wood, M.A.</p>
+
+<p>47 Brewing. By A. Chaston Chapman, F.I.C.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>&ldquo;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.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Spectator</i></p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;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.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>School World</i></p>
+
+<hr class="hr65" />
+
+<p style="text-align: center;">Cambridge University Press<br />C. F. Clay, Manager<br />
+LONDON: Fetter Lane. E.C.<br />EDINBURGH: 100 Princes Street</p>
+
+<hr class="hr95" />
+
+<div class="note">
+
+<p>Transcriber's Notes:</p>
+
+<p>The original spelling and minor inconsistencies in the spelling and
+formatting have been maintained.</p>
+
+<p>Inconsistent hyphenation and accents are as in the original if not marked
+as a misprint.</p>
+
+<p>The table below lists all corrections applied to the original text.</p>
+
+<table summary="corrections">
+<tr><td>p. 9: to be justified, &#8594; to be justified.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 42: Fig 14. &#8594; Fig. 14.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 71: (Corrèze) &#8594; (<i>Corrèze</i>)</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 72: (Corrèze). [From Boule.] &#8594; (From Boule.)</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 73: (Dordogne) &#8594; (<i>Dordogne</i>)</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 74: implements were scattered &#8594; scattered.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 79: in the preceding chapter, &#8594; chapter</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 110: from the effects of fortuitious &#8594; fortuitous</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 136: as also between <i>N</i> &#8594; <i>C</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 154: Band <span class="smcap">XII,</span> s. 15. &#8594; Band <span class="smcap">XII.</span> S. 15.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 154: für Ethnologie, 1895, s. 338. &#8594; S. 338.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 155: für Anthropologie. Band 35, s. 62 &#8594; S. 62</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 156: für Ethnologie. Band <span class="smcap">XL.</span> s. 390 &#8594; S. 390</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 156: 2nd Edn &#8594; Edn.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 156: Sollas 1908 &#8594; Sollas, 1908</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 157: Die morphologische Abstämmung &#8594; Abstammung</td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 158: v. also &#8594; <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 159: v. also &#8594; <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 159: Heidelberg, v. &#8594; Heidelberg, <i>v.</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 160: v. also &#8594; <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 161: v. also &#8594; <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 161: Urus, v. &#8594; Urus, <i>v.</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>p. 166: By A. Wood, M.A &#8594; M.A.</td></tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44331-h.htm or 44331-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/3/3/44331/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7c945da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/cover.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_1.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_1.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c9ee8e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_1.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_10.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_10.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8cbb39d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_10.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_11.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_11.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..113c261
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_11.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_12.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_12.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d24febb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_12.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_13.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_13.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..226e4c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_13.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_14.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_14.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4303a80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_14.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_15.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_15.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5e512b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_15.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_16.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_16.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..55c8cba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_16.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_17.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_17.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0ee65e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_17.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_18.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_18.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c3cd0b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_18.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_19.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_19.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ed511eb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_19.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_2.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_2.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ceb8974
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_2.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_20.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_20.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..00263b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_20.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_21.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_21.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..289d76b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_21.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_22.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_22.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..34e7417
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_22.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_23.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_23.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8a2772e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_23.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_24.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_24.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..878a0c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_24.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_25.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_25.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7310474
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_25.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_26.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_26.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dc77724
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_26.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_27.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_27.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c501186
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_27.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_28.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_28.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b94c6e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_28.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_29.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_29.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..69b9ff8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_29.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_3.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_3.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dd7d636
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_3.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_5.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_5.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..04f8b40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_5.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_7.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_7.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..725b267
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_7.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_8.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_8.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..474a6c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_8.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_9.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_9.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3651aba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_9.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_ii.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_ii.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0f4719a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_ii.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331-h/images/img_iii.jpg b/old/44331-h/images/img_iii.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7c945da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331-h/images/img_iii.jpg
diff --git a/old/44331.txt b/old/44331.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..57ef181
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,5053 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+
+Title: Prehistoric Man
+
+Author: W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+Release Date: December 1, 2013 [EBook #44331]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+             The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature
+
+
+                             PREHISTORIC MAN
+
+
+
+
+                       CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
+                        London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
+                           C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
+
+                             [Illustration]
+
+                     Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET
+              London: H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET, W.C.
+             WILLIAM WESLEY & SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND
+                        Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
+                        Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
+                      New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
+              Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
+
+                          _All rights reserved_
+
+
+                             [Illustration]
+
+
+                             PREHISTORIC MAN
+
+                                   BY
+
+                           W. L. H. DUCKWORTH
+                            M.A., M.D., Sc.D.
+
+                     University Lecturer in Physical
+                         Anthropology, Cambridge
+
+                               Cambridge:
+                         at the University Press
+                                  1912
+
+                          _First Edition_, 1912
+                         _Second Edition_, 1912
+
+
+_With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on the
+title page is a reproduction of one used by the earliest known Cambridge
+printer, John Siberch, 1521_
+
+
+
+
+                                 PREFACE
+
+
+This book deals with the earliest phases in the past history of Mankind:
+the selected period ends at the Aurignacian division of the Palaeolithic
+Age. I regret to be unable to affix definite dates in years to the
+several divisions of time now recognised. To illustrate the difficulty of
+forming conclusions on this subject, it should be noted that in 1904
+Professor Rutot (p. 103) assigned a duration of 139,000 years to the
+Pleistocene period, while in 1909 Dr Sturge claimed 700,000 years for a
+portion only of the same period. Evidently the present tendency is to
+increase enormously the drafts on geological time, and to measure in
+millions the years that have elapsed since the first traces of human
+existence were deposited.
+
+But in the face of estimates which differ so widely, it seemed preferable
+to distinguish subdivisions of time by reference to animal-types or the
+forms of stone-implements, rather than by the lapse of years.
+
+In the attempt to summarise a considerable amount of evidence, I have
+tried to select the facts most relevant to the subject in hand. And where
+an opinion is expressed I have endeavoured to indicate the reasons for
+the decision that is adopted.
+
+Additional evidence is pouring in at the present time, and there is no
+doubt but that the next few years will witness great extensions of
+knowledge. In this connection, I take the opportunity of mentioning the
+discovery made a few weeks ago by M. Henri Martin at La Quina, of a human
+skeleton resembling the Neanderthal type but presenting (it is said)
+definite features of inferiority to that type. Another subject of vast
+importance is Mr Moir's recent demonstration (p. 106) of elaborately
+worked implements resting beneath strata referred to the Pliocene period.
+
+For the loan of blocks, or for permission to reproduce illustrations, my
+cordial thanks are due to the editors and publishers of the journals
+mentioned in the following list. The authors' names are appended to the
+several illustrations.
+
+    Anatomischer Anzeiger,
+    Archiv fuer Anthropologie,
+    Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia,
+    Beitraege zur Urgeschichte Bayerns,
+    Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft,
+    L'Anthropologie,
+    Royal Dublin Society,
+    Royal Society of Edinburgh,
+    Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie.
+
+                                                   W. L. H. DUCKWORTH
+
+    _December_ 11, 1911
+
+
+
+
+                                CONTENTS
+
+
+  CHAP.     	                                                     PAGE
+
+    I.  The Precursors of Palaeolithic Man                              1
+
+   II.  Palaeolithic Man                                               17
+
+  III.  Alluvial Deposits and Caves                                    63
+
+   IV.  Associated Animals and Implements                              85
+
+    V.  Human Fossils and Geological Chronology                       112
+
+   VI.  Human Evolution in the light of recent research	              127
+
+       Table A                                        _to face p._ 85
+
+         "   B                                        _to  "   "_ 118
+
+
+
+
+                          LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
+
+
+   FIG.     	                                                     PAGE
+
+     1. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc.
+        (From Dubois)                                                   5
+
+     2. Outline tracings of Jawbones, (A) Mauer (B) ancient Briton     11
+
+     3. Tooth from Taubach: surface of crown. (From Nehring)           22
+
+     4. Tooth of Chimpanzee. (From Nehring)                            22
+
+  5, 6. Tooth from Taubach: inner and outer sides. (From Nehring)      23
+
+     7. Human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner)                       25
+
+     8. Tracings of teeth from Krapina and Mauer. (From Kramberger)    29
+
+     9. Human skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Birkner)        33
+
+    10. Outline tracings of skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints etc.
+        (From Boule)                                                   35
+
+    11. Contours of skulls, (A) New Guinea man (B) European woman      36
+
+    12. Outline tracing of human skull from Le Moustier                40
+
+    13. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer and Le Moustier        41
+
+    14. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer, La Naulette, etc.
+        (From Frizzi)                                                  42
+
+    15. Outline tracings of jawbones, (A) ancient Briton (B) Le
+        Moustier (C) Mauer                                             43
+
+    16. Outline tracings of the Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar) skull.
+        (From Sera)                                                    48
+
+    17. Human skull of the Grimaldi-type. (From Birkner)               51
+
+    18. Outline tracings of skulls from Galley Hill etc. (From
+        Klaatsch)                                                      58
+
+    19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. (From Dubois)         64
+
+    20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. (From Birkner)                     65
+
+    21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. (From Birkner)            69
+
+    22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Boule)       72
+
+    23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Boule)  77
+
+    24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene, and
+        Pleistocene time. (From Penck)                                107
+
+    25. Chart of oscillations of snow-level in the Glacial period.
+        (From Penck)                                                  119
+
+    26. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc.
+        (From Dubois)                                                 129
+
+    27. Position of Palaeolithic Man in the scale of evolution.
+        (From Cross)                                                  131
+
+    28. Thigh-bones arranged to illustrate Klaatsch's theory.         136
+
+    29. The human skeleton found beneath the Boulder-clay at Ipswich.
+        (From a drawing by Dr Keith, reproduced with permission)      153
+
+
+
+
+                                CHAPTER I
+
+                   THE PRECURSORS OF PALAEOLITHIC MAN
+
+
+Our knowledge of prehistoric man is based naturally upon the study of
+certain parts of the human skeleton preserved in a fossil state. In
+addition to these materials, other evidence is available in the form of
+certain products of human industry. These include such objects as
+implements of various kinds, owing their preservation to the almost
+indestructible nature of their material, or again artistic
+representations, whether pictorial or glyptic.
+
+The evidence of the bones themselves will be considered first, partly for
+convenience and partly in view of the cogency possessed by actual remains
+of the human frame. Other branches of the subject will come under review
+afterwards.
+
+Of all the discoveries of ancient remains, whether possibly or certainly
+human, two in particular stand out pre-eminently in marked relief. The
+specimens thus distinguished are known as the remains of _Pithecanthropus
+erectus_, on the one hand, and on the other a jaw-bone which is
+attributed to a human type described (from the locality of the discovery)
+as _Homo heidelbergensis_.
+
+The geological antiquity assigned in each instance is greater than that
+claimed for any bones acknowledged unreservedly to be human.
+
+It is thus clear that a high value attaches to these specimens if they be
+regarded as documents testifying to the course of human evolution. When
+the bones are examined, the contrast they provide with all human remains
+is so marked as to emphasise at once the necessity for a thorough and
+critical examination of their structure.
+
+
+                       _Pithecanthropus erectus._
+
+In the case of these bones, the facts are now so widely known and so
+easily accessible as to render unnecessary any detailed exposition here.
+The discoveries were made in the years 1891 and 1892 by Professor
+Dubois[1], who was engaged at the time on an investigation of the remains
+of various animals found embedded in a river-bank in Java. As is well
+known, the actual remains are scanty. They comprise the upper part of a
+skull, part of a lower jaw (which has never been described), three teeth,
+and a left thigh-bone.
+
+[1] The numbers refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume.
+
+Before entering upon any criticism of the results of Professor Dubois'
+studies, it is convenient to give a general statement of his conclusions.
+Here we find described a creature of Pliocene age, presenting a form so
+extraordinary as hardly to be considered human, placed so it seems
+between the human and simian tribes. It is Caliban, a missing link,--in
+fact a Pithecanthropus.
+
+With the erect attitude and a stature surpassing that of many modern men
+were combined the heavy brows and narrow forehead of a flattened skull,
+containing little more than half the weight of brain possessed by an
+average European. The molar teeth were large with stout and divergent
+roots.
+
+The arguments founded upon the joint consideration of the length of the
+thigh-bone and the capacity of the skull are of the highest interest. For
+the former dimension provides a means of estimating approximately the
+body-weight, while the capacity gives an indication of the brain-weight.
+The body-weight is asserted to have been about 70 kgm. (eleven stone) and
+the brain-weight about 750 gm. And the ratio of the two weights is
+approximately 1/94. The corresponding ratios for a large anthropoid ape
+(Orang-utan) and for man are given in the table following, thus:
+
+                Orang-utan                  1/183
+               _Pithecanthropus erectus_     1/94
+                Man                          1/51
+
+The intermediate position of the Javanese fossil is clearly revealed.
+
+The same sequence is shewn by a series of tracings representative of the
+cranial arc in the middle line of the head (Fig. 1). And the results of
+many tests of this kind, applied not only by Professor Dubois but also
+by Professor Schwalbe, are confirmatory of the 'intermediate' position
+claimed for _Pithecanthropus erectus_. The molar teeth are of inadequate
+size if the skull-cap is that of an ape, whereas they are slightly larger
+than the corresponding teeth furnished by primitive existing human types.
+And now some of the objections to this account may be taken.
+
+In the first place, the claim to Pliocene antiquity is contested. So keen
+an interest was excited by Professor Dubois' discovery that more than one
+expedition has been dispatched to survey and review the ground. It is now
+declared in certain quarters that the horizon is lower Quaternary: I do
+not know that any attempt has been made to reduce the age of the strata
+further. As the matter stands, the difference is not very material, but
+Professor Dubois refuses to accept the revised estimate and still adheres
+to his own determination. Incidentally the more recent work
+(Blanckenhorn[2], 1910) has resulted in the discovery of a tooth claimed
+as definitely human (this is not the case with the teeth of
+_Pithecanthropus erectus_), and yet of an antiquity surpassing that of
+the remains found by Professor Dubois. The latter appears unconvinced as
+to the genuineness of the find, but no doubt the case will be fully
+discussed in publications now in the course of preparation.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 1. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a
+                 common dimension, viz. the line _Gl--Op_, representing a
+                 base-line of the brain-case. _Pe_, Pithecanthropus.
+                 _Papua_, a New Guinea native. _Hl_, _Sm_, _At_ are from
+                 skulls of monkeys. (After Dubois.)]
+
+Professor Dubois assigned the bones to one and the same skeleton, and for
+this he has been severely criticised. Apart from arguments affecting the
+geological age of the specimens, the question of their forming part of a
+single individual is very momentous. For if two skeletons are
+represented, one may be human, while the other is that of an ape. It is
+admitted that the larger bones were separated by a distance of forty-six
+feet. By way of meeting this criticism, it is submitted that the distance
+is by no means so great as to preclude the possibility of the common and
+identical origin of the various bones. Moreover it is at least curious
+that if two skeletons are here represented, no further remains should
+have been detected in the immediate vicinity.
+
+The fact that the thigh-bone might easily have passed as that of a man,
+while the skull-fragment is so divergent from all modern forms as to be
+scarcely human, is of great interest. The contrast between the
+indications provided by the two bones was remarked at once. Some writers,
+rejecting certain other evidence on the point, then drew the inference
+that the human thigh-bone had been evolved and had arrived at the
+distinctive human condition in advance of the skull. The importance of
+this conclusion lies in the fact that the human thigh-bone bears
+indications of an erect attitude, while the form of the skull gives
+guidance as to the size of the brain, and consequently to some extent
+provides a clue to the mental endowment of the individual. Whether the
+erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development was first obtained
+by man has been debated for many years. In this case, the evidence was
+taken to shew that the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means
+of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth the upper limb was
+emancipated entirely from its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation
+followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from their use as organs of
+prehension. Simultaneously the mechanism whereby the head is attached to
+the neck and trunk became profoundly modified. This alteration gave to
+the brain an opportunity of growth and increase previously denied, but
+now seized, with the consequent accession of intellectual activity so
+characteristic of the Hominidae.
+
+The story thus expounded is attractive from several points of view. But
+while possessing the support of the Javan fossil remains, it is not
+confirmed in the embryonic history of Man, for there the growth of the
+brain is by far the most distinctive feature. Nor did those who adopted
+this opinion (in 1896), take into account all the characters of the
+ancient human remains even then available. For the evidence of those
+remains points to an order exactly the reverse of that just stated, and
+it indicates the early acquisition of a large and presumably active
+brain. And now that additions have been lately made to those older
+remains (other than the Javan bones), the same 'reversed' order seems to
+be confirmed. On the whole therefore, the soundest conclusion is that
+following a preliminary increment of brain-material, the erect attitude
+came as a further evolutionary advance.
+
+But to return from this digression to the objections against the
+_Pithecanthropus erectus_, it must now be explained that the very
+contrast between the thigh-bone and the skull-cap in respect of these
+inferences, has been used as an argument against the association of these
+bones as part of one skeleton.
+
+The objection may be met in two ways at least. For instance, the
+thigh-bone may yet possess characters which lessen its resemblance to
+those of recent men, but are not recognised on a superficial inspection.
+Careful investigation of the thigh-bone seems to shew that such indeed
+is the case (indeed the human characters are by some absolutely denied).
+But together with this result comes the discovery that the characters of
+straightness and slenderness in the shaft of the bone from which the
+inference as to the erect attitude was largely drawn, do not give
+trustworthy evidence upon this point. In fact, a human thigh-bone may be
+much less straight and less slender than that of arboreal animals such as
+the Gibbon, the Cebus monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycticebus). The
+famous Eppelsheim femur is straighter than, and as slender as that of
+Pithecanthropus. It was regarded at first as that of a young woman, but
+is now ascribed to an anthropoid ape. And in fact, even if the skull-cap
+and thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus should be retained in association, it
+seems that the title 'erectus' is not fully justified.
+
+Another method of rebutting the objection is based on the suggestion that
+Pithecanthropus is not a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to
+describe an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in palaeontology,
+and it was treated leniently by Huxley. To my mind this position can be
+adopted without materially depreciating the value of the evidence yielded
+by the conjoint remains, provided only that their original association be
+acknowledged. Should this assumption be granted, the claims put forward
+on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem to be justified. On
+the other hand, should the association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be
+rejected, the former has not lost all claim to the same position. For the
+most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe[3] of Strassburg, and the
+further elaboration of these by Professor Berry[4] and Mr Cross[5] of
+Melbourne, support Professor Dubois' view. And though the objections may
+not have been finally disposed of, a review of the literature called
+forth by Professor Dubois' publications will shew a slight margin of
+evidence for, rather than against his view.
+
+
+                    _The Heidelberg or Mauer Jaw_[6].
+
+Professor Dubois' Javanese researches were carried out in the years 1891
+and 1892. Fifteen years separate the discovery of the _Pithecanthropus
+erectus_ from that of the second great find mentioned in the introductory
+paragraph of this chapter. This period was by no means barren in respect
+of other additions to the list of human fossils. But the other results
+(including even the finds at Taubach) are regarded as of subsidiary
+importance, so that their consideration will be deferred for the present.
+In 1907 a lower jaw, known now as the Heidelberg or Mauer jaw, was
+discovered by workmen in the sand-pit of Mauer near Heidelberg.
+
+The Mauer jaw is indeed a most remarkable specimen. The first general
+outcome of an inspection of the photographs or of the excellent casts
+(which may now be seen in many museums) is a profound impression of its
+enormous strength (Figs. 2, 13, and 15_c_). By every part of the specimen
+save one, this impression is confirmed. This massiveness, together with
+the complete absence of any prominence at the chin, would have caused
+great hesitation in regard to the pronouncement of a decision as to the
+probable nature of the fossil. The one paradoxical feature is the
+relatively small size of the teeth. All of these have been preserved,
+though on the left side the crowns of four have been removed by accident
+in the process of clearing away some adherent earth and pebbles. The net
+result shews that the teeth are actually within the range of variation
+provided by human beings of races still extant, though commonly regarded
+as 'primitive,' if not pithecoid (such as the aboriginal race of
+Australia). Yet these teeth are implanted in a jaw of such size and
+strength as render difficult the reference of the specimen to a human
+being.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 2. _A_ outline tracing of a cast of the Mauer
+                 Jawbone. _B_ a similar tracing from an unusually large
+                 jaw of an ancient Briton. (From specimens in the
+                 Cambridge Museum.)]
+
+The most striking features of the Mauer jaw have been mentioned already.
+Before entering upon a further discussion of its probable nature, it will
+be well to note some of the other distinctive characters. Thus the
+portion Fig. 2 (_a_) known technically as the ascending ramus is of great
+size, and particularly wide, surpassing all known human specimens in this
+respect. The upper margin of this part is very slightly excavated, a
+slight depression (_b_) replacing the very definite 'sigmoid' notch found
+in almost all human jaws (though the relative shallowness of this notch
+has been long recognised as distinctive of the lowest human types). The
+difference in vertical height between the uppermost points of the condyle
+(_c_) and the coronoid process (_d_) is therefore unusually small. On
+the other hand, the lower margin of the bone is undulating, so that it
+presents a hollow on each side, as well as one near the middle line in
+front. The two halves of the bone are definitely inclined to one another
+and this convergence is faintly marked in the two rows of teeth behind
+the canines. The latter teeth do not project markedly above the level of
+those adjacent to them. The incisor teeth are remarkably curved in their
+long axes, with a convexity in front. The prominences called 'genial
+tubercles' behind the chin are replaced by a shallow pit or fossa.
+
+In one sense the reception accorded by palaeontologists to the fossil jaw
+of Mauer differs remarkably from most of the comparable instances. That
+difference consists in the comparative absence of controversy excited by
+its discovery. This must not be ascribed to any lack of ardour on the
+part of archaeologists. More probable is it that with the lapse of time,
+the acceptance of an evolutionary interpretation of the origin of man has
+gained a wider circle of adherents, so that the claims of even so
+sensational a specimen as this, are sifted and investigated with a
+judicial calm much more appropriate and certainly more dignified than the
+fierce outbursts occasioned by some of the earlier discoveries.
+
+It remains to institute brief anatomical comparisons between the Mauer
+jaw and those of the highest apes on the one hand, and of the most
+primitive of human beings on the other.
+
+(_a_) Of the three larger anthropoid apes available for comparison, it is
+hard to say which presents the closest similarity. The Gibbons do not
+appear to approach so nearly as these larger forms. Among the latter, no
+small range of individual variations occurs. My own comparisons shew that
+of the material at my disposal the mandible of an Orang-utan comes
+nearest to the Mauer jaw. But other mandibles of the same kind of ape
+(Orang-utan) are very different. The chief difficulty in assigning the
+possessor of the Mauer jaw to a pithecoid stock has been mentioned
+already. It consists in the inadequate size of the teeth. In addition to
+this, other evidence comes from the results of an examination of the
+grinding surfaces (crowns) of the molar teeth. These resemble teeth of
+the more primitive human types rather than those of apes. Finally the
+convergence of the two rows when traced towards the canine or eye-tooth
+of each side, points in the same direction.
+
+(_b_) If the apes be thus rejected, the next question is, Would the Mauer
+jaw be appropriate to such a cranium as that of Pithecanthropus? I
+believe an affirmative answer is justifiable. It is true that an
+excellent authority (Keith[7]) hesitates on the ground that the mandible
+seems too massive for the skull, though the same writer recognises that,
+in regard to the teeth, the comparison is apt. This is a difficult point.
+For instance the _H. moust. hauseri_ (cf. Chapter II) has a mandible
+which is far 'lower' than the capacity of the brain-case would lead one
+to expect. Therefore it seems that the degree of correlation between
+mandible and capacity is small, and to predict the size of the brain from
+evidence given by the jaw is not always safe. It is to be remembered that
+special stress was laid by Professor Dubois (cf. p. 4) on the fact that
+the teeth of Pithecanthropus when compared with the skull-cap are
+inadequately small, if judged by the ape-standard of proportion. The
+characters of the teeth, in so far as upper and lower molars can be
+compared, present no obstacle to such an association, and in fact provide
+some additional evidence in its favour. The crucial point seems therefore
+to be the massiveness of the jaw. With regard to this, the following
+remarks may be made. First, that the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus is on
+all sides admitted to shew provision for powerful jaw-muscles. And
+further, in respect of actual measurements, the comparison of the
+transverse width of the Javanese skull-cap with that of the Mauer jaw is
+instructive. For the skull-cap measures 130 mm. in extreme width, the jaw
+130 mm. The association of the two does not, in my opinion, make an
+extravagant demand on the variability in size of either part. A curious
+comparison may be instituted between the Mauer jaw and the corresponding
+bone as represented by Professor Manouvrier (cf. Dubois[8], 1896) in an
+attempted reconstruction of the whole skull of Pithecanthropus. Professor
+Manouvrier's forecast of the jaw differs from the Mauer specimen chiefly
+in regard to the size of the teeth, and the stoutness of the ascending
+ramus. The teeth are larger and the ascending ramus is more slender in
+the reconstruction than in the Mauer specimen.
+
+(_c_) Passing from the consideration of Pithecanthropus to that of human
+beings, the general results of the comparisons that can be made will shew
+that the gap separating the jaw of Mauer from all modern human
+representatives is filled by human jaws of great prehistoric antiquity.
+
+The progress of an evolutionary development is accordingly
+well-illustrated by these specimens. And although _Homo heidelbergensis_
+is seen to be separated from his modern successors by great differences
+in form as well as a vast lapse of time, still the intervening period
+does provide intermediate forms to bridge the gulf. Not the least
+interesting of many reflections conjured up by the Mauer jaw, is that
+this extraordinary form should be met with in a latitude so far north of
+that corresponding to the Javanese discoveries. This difference, together
+with that of longitude, suggests an immense range of distribution of
+these ancestral types. Some of their successors are considered in the
+next chapter.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER II
+
+                            PALAEOLITHIC MAN
+
+
+The fossil remains described in the preceding chapter possess good claims
+to that most interesting position, viz. an intermediate one between
+Mankind and the more highly-developed of the Apes.
+
+From such remarkable claimants we turn to consider fossil bones of
+undoubted human nature. Of such examples some have been regarded as
+differing from all other human types to such an extent as to justify
+their segregation in a distinct species or even genus. Yet even were such
+separation fully justified, they are still indubitably human.
+
+In the early phases of the study of prehistoric archaeology, the
+distinction of a 'stone age' from those of metals was soon realised.
+Credit is due to the present Lord Avebury[9] for the subdivision of that
+period into the earlier and later parts known as the Palaeolithic and
+Neolithic stages. At first, those subdivisions possessed no connotation
+of anatomical or ethnical significance. But as research progressed, the
+existence of a representative human type specially characteristic of the
+palaeolithic period passed from the stage of surmise to that of
+certainty. Yet, although characteristic, this type is not the only one
+recognisable in those early days.
+
+In the following pages, some account is given of the most recent
+discoveries of human remains to which Palaeolithic antiquity can
+undoubtedly be assigned. The very numerous works relating to prehistoric
+man are full of discussions of such specimens as those found in the
+Neanderthal, at Spy, Engis, Malarnaud, La Naulette or Denise.
+
+That some of these examples are of great antiquity is inferred from the
+circumstances under which they were discovered. The evidence relates
+either to their association with extinct animals such as the Mammoth, or
+again the bones may have been found at great depths from the surface, in
+strata judged to have been undisturbed since the remains were deposited.
+One of the earliest discoveries was that of the Engis skull; the
+differences separating this skull from those of modern Europeans are so
+extraordinarily slight that doubt has been expressed as to the antiquity
+assigned to the specimen, and indeed this doubt has not been finally
+dispelled. The bones from Denise (now rehabilitated in respect of their
+antiquity by Professor Boule) present similar features. But on the other
+hand the jaws found at La Naulette and Malarnaud suggest the former
+existence of a lowlier and more bestial form of humanity. Support is
+provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but in regard to the
+latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct from presumption) is
+unfortunately lacking. Further confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry
+skull from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that of the
+Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk and Sir William Turner[10] as
+long ago as 1864, the specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in
+that of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the geological or
+archaeological horizon is lamentably defective. After a lapse of some
+twenty years, the discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium,
+undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of Mammoth, threw a
+flood of light on the subject, and enormously enhanced the significance
+of the earlier discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a human
+type, different from all other known inhabitants of that continent, and
+presenting no small resemblance to the lowliest modern representatives of
+mankind, may be said to have been finally established by the results of
+the excavations at Spy. Moreover the differences thus recognised are such
+as to lend strong support to the evolutionary view as to the origin of
+the more recent human stocks from an ancestral series including
+representatives of a simian phase. Yet the co-existence of a higher type
+represented by the Engis skull must not be overlooked, nor indeed has
+this been the case. The significance of so remarkable a phenomenon is
+more fully discussed in the sequel; but no detailed account of the
+earlier discoveries need be given. A bibliography is appended and here
+references (H[oe]rnes[44], 1908; Schwalbe[55]) will be found to the more
+important sources of information upon those specimens.
+
+  _Locality_      |  _Date_   | _Literary reference_ | _Synonyms_
+                  |           |                      |
+  Taubach         |   1895    | Nehring[11]          |
+  Krapina         |   1899    | Kramberger[12]       |
+  S. Brelade      | 1910-11   | Marett[13]           |
+  La Chapelle aux |   1908    | Boule[14]            | "Correze"
+  Saints          |           |                      |
+  Le Moustier     |   1908    | Klaatsch[15]         | "Homo mousterensis
+                  |           |                      |   hauseri"
+  La Ferrassie    |   1909    | Peyrony[16]          |
+  Pech de l'Aze   |   1909    | Peyrony[16]          |
+  Forbes Quarry   | 1848-1909 | Sollas[17] Sera[18]  | "Gibraltar"
+  Andalusia       |   1910    | Verner[19]           |
+  Grotte des      |  1902-06  | Verneau[20]          | "Grimaldi"
+  Enfants         |           |                      |
+  Baradero        |   1887    | (S. Roth) Lehmann-   |
+                  |           |   Nitsche (1907)[21] |
+  Monte Hermoso   |     ?     | Lehmann-Nitsche      | "Homo neogaeus"
+                  |           |   (1909)[22]         |
+  Combe Capelle   |   1909    | Klaatsch[23]         | "Homo aurignacensis
+                  |           |                      |   hauseri"
+  Galley Hill     |   1895    | Newton[24]           | "Homo fossilis"
+
+In the present instance, an attempt will be made to provide some account
+of the most recent advances gained through the results of excavations
+carried out in late years. And herein, prominence will be given in the
+first place to such human remains as are assignable to the lowlier human
+type represented previously by the Spy skeletons. Following upon these,
+come examples possessing other characters and therefore not referable to
+the same type.
+
+The discoveries are commonly designated by the name of the locality in
+which they were made. Those selected for particular mention are
+enumerated in the list on p. 20.
+
+
+                        _Taubach in Saxe-Weimar._
+
+Certain specimens discovered at Taubach and first described in 1895
+possess an importance second only to that of the Mauer jaw and of the
+Javan bones found by Professor Dubois. Indeed there would be
+justification for associating the three localities in the present series
+of descriptions. But upon consideration, it was decided to bring the
+Taubach finds into the present place and group. It may be added that they
+are assigned to an epoch not very different from that represented by the
+Mauer strata whence the mandible was obtained.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 3. The grinding surface of the first right lower
+                 molar tooth from Taubach. The letters denote several
+                 small prominences called cusps.]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 4. The grinding surface of the corresponding tooth
+                 (cf. Fig. 3) of a Chimpanzee. (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are
+                 much enlarged.)]
+
+The actual material consists only of two human teeth of the molar series.
+One is the first lower 'milk' molar of the left side. This tooth exceeds
+most corresponding modern examples in its dimensions. In a large
+collection of modern teeth from Berlin no example provided dimensions so
+large. The surface is more worn than is usual in modern milk teeth of
+this kind. The second tooth (Fig. 3) is the first lower 'permanent' molar
+of the left side. It bears five cusps. Neither this number of cusps, nor
+its absolute dimensions, confer distinction upon the tooth. Its chief
+claim to notice is based upon its relative narrowness from side to side.
+That narrowness (proportion of transverse to anteroposterior diameter),
+represented by the ratio 84.6:100, is present in a distinctly unusual and
+almost simian degree. In this character the Taubach tooth resembles the
+same tooth of the Chimpanzee (Fig. 4), to which it stands nearer than
+does the corresponding tooth of the Mauer jaw. The manner in which the
+worn surface of the tooth slopes downwards and forwards has been claimed
+as another simian character. In these respects, the Taubach tooth is
+among the most ape-like of human teeth (whether prehistoric or recent) as
+yet recorded, and in my opinion there is some difficulty in deciding
+whether this is the tooth of a human being or of a pithecoid human
+precursor. There is a very slight tendency (Figs. 5, 6) to concrescence
+of the roots, and these are curiously parallel in direction, when viewed
+from the side. In the latter respect no similarity to the teeth of apes
+can be recognised.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 5. Inner side of the Taubach tooth.]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 6. Outer side of the same. (From Nehring.)]
+
+
+                          _Krapina in Croatia._
+
+Next in order to the discovery of human teeth at Taubach, the results of
+excavations in a so-called 'rock-shelter' on the bank of the river
+Krapini[vc]a in Croatia, call for consideration. Immense numbers of bones
+were obtained, and the remains of a large number of human beings were
+found to be mingled with those of various animals. Apart from their
+abundance, the fragmentary character of the human bones is very
+remarkable. The discovery that one particular stratum in the cave
+consisted mainly of burnt human bones has suggested that some of the
+early inhabitants of the Krapina shelter practised cannibalism.
+
+Indeed this view is definitely adopted by Professor Kramberger, and he
+makes the suggestion that the remains include representatives of those
+who practised as well as those who suffered from this custom. Both young
+individuals and those of mature age are represented, but very aged
+persons have not been recognised.
+
+Turning to the details of the actual bones, the conclusion of outstanding
+interest is the recognition of further instances of the type of the
+Neanderthal and of Spy, the latter discovery being separated by a lapse
+of twenty years and more from that at Krapina. An attempt has been made
+to reconstruct one skull, and the result is shewn in Fig. 7, which
+provides a view of the specimen in profile. Viewed from above, the chief
+character is the width of the cranial portion, which exceeds very
+distinctly in this respect the corresponding diameter in the more classic
+examples from the Neanderthal and Spy. It is very important to note that
+the brain-case is thus shewn to be remarkably capacious, and this is all
+the more remarkable since the limb-bones do not denote a very great
+stature or bulk.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 7. Profile view of a reconstructed human skull from
+                 Krapina. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)]
+
+Having recently examined the specimens now in the Museum of Palaeontology
+at Agram in Croatia, I venture to add some notes made on that occasion.
+The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a femur are certainly most
+impressive. It is shewn that early palaeolithic man presents examples of
+skulls both of brachy-cephalic and dolicho-cephalic proportions.
+Variations in the form and arrangement of the facial bones also occur.
+
+The form and proportions of the brain-case have been noted already. The
+profile view (cf. Fig. 7) shews the distinctive features of the brow
+region. The brow-ridges are very large, but they do not absolutely
+conform to the conditions presented by the corresponding parts in the
+skulls of aboriginal Australian or Tasmanian natives. The region of the
+forehead above the brows is in some instances (but not in all) flattened
+or retreating, and this feature is indicated even in some small fragments
+by the oblique direction of the lamina cribrosa of the ethmoid bone.
+
+Two types of upper jaw are distinguishable: no specimen projects forwards
+so far as might be expected, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards
+(as in some crania of aboriginal Australians). The facial surface of the
+jaw is not depressed to form a 'canine fossa.' The nasal bones are
+flattened.
+
+The mandibles present further remarkable characters. By these again, two
+types have been rendered capable of distinction. In their massiveness
+they are unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In absolute width
+one specimen actually surpasses the Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival
+that bone in respect of the great width found to characterise the
+ascending ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the chin is absent
+or at best feebly developed. In one specimen the body of the jaw is bent
+at an angle between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is thus
+reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the incisor teeth the conformation
+is peculiar, again suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer jaw,
+and differing from that found in more recent human specimens.
+
+The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made in the following
+manner. The bone was placed on a flat surface. The vertical height of the
+tooth-bearing part was measured in two regions, (_a_) near the front,
+(_b_) further back, and close to the second molar tooth (cf. Fig. 2_f_,
+_g_). In some of the bones these measurements are nearly equal, but the
+hinder one is always the less. In the instances in which the two
+measurements approximate to one another, the proportion is as 100:92. In
+other instances the corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being
+about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered by Professor
+Kramberger to indicate a special variety (krapinensis) of the Neanderthal
+or _Homo primigenius_ type. The second type is that of the Spy mandible
+No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects to the distinction, urging
+that the indices (92 and 86) are not sufficiently contrasted. However
+this may be, it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences. Thus
+the curvature of the forehead is a variable feature, some skulls having
+had foreheads much flatter and more retreating than others. The limb
+bones are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of the arm-bones and
+thigh-bones are longer and more slender than others.
+
+How far these differences really penetrated and whether the thesis of two
+types can be fully sustained, does not appear to admit of a final answer.
+The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the distinction will be
+confirmed. But nevertheless I am far from supporting in all respects the
+view of Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe the suggestion of
+realistic tableaux depicting the murderous conflict of the two tribes at
+Krapina, the butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene of
+cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either variety or type found at
+Krapina can be reasonably identified with that of the Galley Hill
+skeleton. But of these matters further discussion is reserved for the
+sequel.
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 8. Tracings (from skiagrams) of various molar
+                 teeth. The specimen _K.o._ from Krapina shews the
+                 conjoined roots characteristic of teeth found at Krapina,
+                 and in Jersey at S. Brelade's Bay. The large pulp-cavity
+                 of the Krapina teeth should be noted. _K.o._, _K.C._,
+                 _K.E._, _K.G._, from Krapina; _H._ Mauer. (From
+                 Kramberger.)]
+
+This brief sketch of the cranial characters of the Krapina remains must
+be supplemented by a note on the teeth. Great numbers were found, and
+some of them are of enormous dimensions, surpassing those of the Mauer
+jaw. But some of the molar teeth are further distinguished in a very
+remarkable way, for the roots supporting the crown of the tooth are
+conjoined or fused: they are not distinct or divergent as is usual. The
+contrast thus provided by these anomalous teeth is well illustrated in
+the accompanying figure (8, _Ko_). Now such fusion of roots is not
+absolutely unknown at the present day; but the third molar or wisdom
+tooth is most frequently affected. The occurrence is extremely unusual in
+the other molar teeth of modern men. Yet among the Krapina teeth, such
+fusion is striking both in its degree and in its frequency. So marked a
+characteristic has attracted much attention. Professor Kramberger holds
+the view that it constituted a feature of adaptation peculiar to the
+Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this, Professor Adloff
+holds that the character is so definite and marked as to enter into the
+category of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion of
+these views was carried on somewhat warmly, but yet to some extent
+fruitlessly so long as the only known examples were those from Krapina.
+Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on the other side may be
+ranged the support of Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very
+substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor Adloff and his
+supporters. For in a cave near S. Brelade's Bay in Jersey, the
+explorations of Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have brought
+to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very similar form. They are said
+indeed by Dr Keith to be precisely comparable to those from Krapina. The
+conjoined roots of such teeth should be regarded therefore as more than a
+peculiarity of the Palaeolithic men of Croatia, and rather as a very
+definite means of assigning to a particular Palaeolithic epoch any other
+instances of a similar nature. Space will not admit of more than a
+simple record of two other features of the Krapina teeth. They are (_a_)
+the curvature of the canine teeth and (_b_) the remarkable size and
+extent of the 'pulp-cavity' (cf. Fig. 8, _Ko_) of the molar teeth. In
+entering upon so protracted a discussion of this part of the evidence,
+the excuse is proffered that, as may be noted in the instances at Trinil
+and Taubach, teeth are remarkably well-fitted for preservation in the
+fossil state, since they may be preserved in circumstances leading to the
+complete destruction of other parts of the skeleton.
+
+The limb bones of the Krapina skeletons are chiefly remarkable for the
+variety they present. Some are short and stout, of almost pygmy
+proportions: others are long and slender, inappropriate in these respects
+to the massive skull fragments which predominate. The distinction of two
+human types upon evidence furnished by the limb bones has already been
+mentioned.
+
+
+                       _S. Brelade's Bay, Jersey._
+
+A cave in this locality has been explored during the last two years
+(1910, 1911). Human remains are represented by the teeth already
+mentioned on account of their resemblance to those found at Krapina. The
+resemblance depends primarily upon the curious fusion of the roots in the
+molar teeth. Moreover, the circumference of the combined and thickened
+roots is so great as to confer a most remarkable 'columnar' appearance
+on the affected teeth (cf. fig. 8, _K.o._). The teeth from Krapina and
+Jersey while thus associated must be contrasted with some specimens which
+they resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth in the Mauer jaw
+have been described as similar to those from Krapina, but I cannot
+confirm this from Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (_H_)
+is a fair representation. The teeth of the Forbes Quarry and Le Moustier
+specimens do not conform to the precise requirements of the test. The Spy
+teeth are said to have three distinct roots save in two cases, where the
+numbers are four and two respectively. The test of combined molar roots
+therefore provides a means of subdividing a group of examples otherwise
+similar, rather than a mark of recognition applicable to all alike.
+
+The S. Brelade teeth also resemble those from Krapina in the proportions
+of their crowns and the unusually large size of the pulp-cavity. The
+latter character may prove more important than the fusion of the roots.
+But the evidence of their surroundings assigns the teeth from Jersey to
+an epoch less ancient than that of the Krapina men.
+
+
+                   _La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze)._
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 9. Profile view of the skull from La
+                 Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze). (From Birkner,
+                 after Boule.)]
+
+The human skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints holds a very distinguished
+position among its congeners. In the first place, the discovery was not
+haphazard, but made by two very competent observers during their
+excavations. Again, the remains comprise not only the nearly intact
+brain-case, but much of the facial part of the skull, together with the
+lower jaw and many bones of the trunk and limbs. The individual was a
+male of mature age, but not senile (Manouvrier). For these reasons, the
+value of this skeleton in evidence is singularly great.
+
+Speaking generally, the specimen is found to resemble very closely the
+Neanderthal skeleton in practically every structure and feature common to
+the two individuals. This correspondence is confirmatory therefore of the
+view which assigns great antiquity to the Neanderthal man, and in
+addition to this, further support is given to the recognition of these
+examples (together with those from Spy and Krapina) as representatives of
+a widely distributed type. It is increasingly difficult to claim them as
+individual variations which have been preserved fortuitously.
+
+Beyond these inferences, the skeleton from La Chapelle adds very greatly
+to the sum total of our knowledge of the structural details of these
+skeletons. For here the facial bones are well preserved. Before
+proceeding to their consideration reference should be made to the side
+view of the skull (Fig. 9), as well as to the tracings of the brain-case
+brought into comparison with those provided by the Neanderthal and Spy
+crania. In the case of one illustration of those tracings (Fig. 10) it
+must be remarked that objection is taken by Professor Klaatsch to the
+base-line selected, though in this particular instance, that objection
+has less weight than in others.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 10. Outline tracings (cf. Fig. 1) of various human
+                 skulls of the Palaeolithic Age. (From Boule.)]
+
+Turning to the facial parts of the skull, the brows will be seen to
+overhang the face less than in many crania of aboriginal Australians.
+Prognathism, _i.e._ projection of the jaws (Fig. 11), though distinct, is
+less pronounced than might be expected. Hereby the reconstruction of the
+facial parts of the Neanderthal skull, as prepared by Professor Klaatsch,
+is shewn to be much exaggerated. The skeleton of the nose reveals some
+simian traits, and on either side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is
+shallow or non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on this
+character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet it is quite uncommon in
+this degree among modern European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida
+Ruggeri to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The
+reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large and in the incisor
+region (_i.e._ in front) are much curved downwards in the direction of
+their length. But this, though probably correct, is yet a matter of
+inference, for only a couple of teeth (the second premolars of the left
+side) were found _in situ_. And so far no detailed description of these
+teeth has appeared. The mandible is of extraordinary dimensions; very
+widely separated 'ascending rami' converge to the massive body of the
+jaw. The sigmoid notch is almost as shallow as in the Mauer jaw. The chin
+is retreating or absent.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 11. Contours of two skulls, _A_ of a New Guinea
+                 man; _B_ of an European woman. The angle _B.PR.P_
+                 measures the degree of prognathism, and in this respect,
+                 the two specimens are strongly contrasted. (From
+                 specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)]
+
+Such are the more easily recognisable features of the skull. It will be
+understood that many more details remain for discussion. But within the
+allotted space, two only can be dealt with. The capacity of the
+brain-case is surprisingly large, for it is estimated at 1600 cubic
+centimetres: from this figure (which will be the subject of further
+discussion in the sequel) it appears that the man of La Chapelle was
+amply provided with cerebral material for all ordinary needs as judged
+even by modern standards. In the second place, MM. Boule and Anthony, not
+content with a mere estimate of capacity, have published an elaborate
+account of the form of the brain as revealed by a cast of the interior
+of the brain-case. As the main result of their investigations, they are
+enabled to record a list of characters indicative of a comparatively
+lowly status as regards the form of the brain, although in actual size it
+leaves little to be desired.
+
+The principal points of interest in the remainder of the skeleton refer
+in the first instance to the estimate of stature and the evidence
+provided as to the natural pose and attitude of the individual. Using
+Professor Pearson's table, I estimate the stature as being from 1600 to
+1620 mm. (5ft. 3in. or 5ft. 4in.), a result almost identical with the
+estimate given for the Neanderthal man. In both, the limb bones are
+relatively thick and massive, and by the curvature of the thigh-bones and
+of the upper parts of the shin-bones, a suggestion is given of the
+peculiar gait described by Professor Manouvrier as 'la marche en
+flexion'; the distinctive feature consists in an incompleteness of the
+straightening of the knee-joint as the limb is swung forwards between
+successive steps.
+
+The bones of the foot are not lacking in interest, and, in particular,
+that called astragalus is provided with an unusually extensive
+joint-surface on its outer aspect. In this respect it becomes liable to
+comparison with the corresponding bone in the feet of climbing animals,
+whether simian or other.
+
+That these features of the bone in question are not peculiar to the
+skeleton from La Chapelle, is shewn by their occurrence in bones of
+corresponding antiquity from La Quina (Martin, 1911) and (it is also
+said) from La Ferrassie (Boule, L'Anthropologie, Mai-Juin, 1911).
+
+
+                _Homo mousterensis hauseri_ (_Dordogne_)
+
+This skeleton was discovered in the lower rock-shelter of Le Moustier
+(Dordogne, France) in the course of excavations carried out by Professor
+Hauser (of Swiss nationality) during the year 1908. The final removal of
+the bones was conducted in the presence of a number of German
+archaeologists expressly invited to attend. The omission to inform or
+invite any French archaeologists, and the immediate removal of the bones
+to Breslau, are regrettable incidents which cast a shadow quite
+unnecessarily on an event of great archaeological interest. By a curious
+coincidence this took place a few days after the discovery of the human
+skeleton of La Chapelle (_v. supra_). The two finds are very fortunately
+complementary to each other in several respects, for the Dordogne
+skeleton is that of a youth, whereas the individual of La Chapelle was
+fully mature. In their main characters, the two skeletons are very
+similar, so that in the present account it will be necessary only to
+mention the more important features revealed by the study of the Dordogne
+specimen. Outline drawings of the two skulls are compared with the
+corresponding contour of the Neanderthal calvaria by Klaatsch.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 12. Outline tracing of a cast of the Moustier skull
+                 (Dordogne). (From a specimen in the Cambridge Museum.)]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 13. Tracings from casts (in the Cambridge Museum)
+                 of the jaw-bone from Mauer and of that of the Moustier
+                 skeleton. The Mauer jaw is indicated by the continuous
+                 line.]
+
+In the Dordogne youth the bones were far more fragile than in the older
+man from La Chapelle. Nevertheless, photographs taken while the bones
+were still _in situ_ but uncovered, provide a means of realising many
+features of interest. Moreover although the face in particular was
+greatly damaged, yet the teeth are perfectly preserved, and were replaced
+in the reconstructed skull of which a representation is shewn in Fig. 12.
+This reconstruction cannot however be described as a happy result of the
+great labour bestowed upon it. In particular it is almost certain that
+the skull is now more prognathous than in its natural state. Apart from
+such drawbacks the value of the specimen is very great, and this is
+especially the case in regard to the teeth and the lower jaw. The former
+are remarkably large, and they agree herein with the teeth from Krapina
+(though their roots are distinct and not conjoined as in the Krapina
+examples). In respect of size, the teeth of the Dordogne individual
+surpass those of the Mauer jaw, but the first lower molar has proportions
+similar to the corresponding tooth of that specimen. But, large as they
+are, the lower teeth are implanted in a mandible falling far short of the
+Mauer jaw in respect of size and weight (Fig. 13). In fact one of the
+great characteristics of the Dordogne skeleton is the inadequacy of the
+mandible when compared to the remainder of the skull, even though
+allowance is made for the youth of the individual. Were it not that the
+facts are beyond dispute, it is difficult to imagine that such a mandible
+could be associated with so large and capacious a cranium. And yet the
+jaw is not devoid of points in which it resembles the Mauer bone, in
+spite of its much smaller bulk. Thus the chin is defective, the lower
+border undulating, and the ascending branch is wide in proportion to its
+height. A good idea of these features is provided by the illustration of
+the side-view (cf. Fig. 14) given by Professor Frizzi. Seen from above,
+the contour is in close agreement with that of several well-known
+examples, such as the jaws from Spy (cf. Fig. 15) and Krapina.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 14. Outline tracings of jaw-bones. In the lower
+                 row, sections are represented as made vertically in the
+                 median plane through the chin, which is either receding
+                 or prominent. In this series, the numbers refer to those
+                 given in the upper set. (From Frizzi.)]
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 15. Outline tracings of jaw-bones viewed from above.
+                 _A_ an ancient Briton (cf. Fig. 2, _B_). _B_ Moustier.
+                 _C_ Mauer. (_B_ and _C_ are from casts in the Cambridge
+                 Museum.)]
+
+The limb bones agree in general appearance with those of the skeletons of
+the Neanderthal and La Chapelle. Though absolutely smaller than in those
+examples, they are yet similar in regard to their stoutness. The femur is
+short and curved, and the articular ends are disproportionately large as
+judged by modern standards. The tibia is prismatic, resembling herein the
+corresponding bone in the Spy skeleton. It is not flattened or
+sabre-like, as in certain other prehistoric skeletons.
+
+Another point of interest derived from the study of the limb bones is the
+stature they indicate. Having regard to all the bones available, a mean
+value of about 1500 mm. (about 4 ft. 11 in.) is thus inferred. Yet the
+youth was certainly 16 years of age and might have been as much as 19
+years. The comparison of stature with that of the other examples
+described is given in a later chapter. At present, it is important to
+remark that in view of this determination (of 4 ft. 11 in.) and even when
+allowance is made for further growth in stature the large size of the
+skull must be regarded as very extraordinary indeed. A similar remark
+applies to the estimate of the capacity of the brain-case. A moderate
+estimate gives 1600 c.c. as the capacity of the brain-case (practically
+identical with that of the La Chapelle skull). In modern Europeans of
+about 5 ft. 6 in., this high figure would not cause surprise. In a modern
+European of the same stature as the Dordogne man (4 ft. 11 in.), so
+capacious a brain-case would be regarded if not as a pathological
+anomaly, yet certainly as the extreme upper limit of normal variation.
+Without insisting further on this paradoxical result (which is partly due
+to defective observations), it will suffice to remark that early
+Palaeolithic man was furnished with a very adequate quantity of
+brain-material, whatever its quality may have been. In regard to the
+amount, no symptom or sign of an inferior evolutionary status can be
+detected.
+
+
+                  _La Ferrassie_ (_Dordogne, France_).
+
+This discovery was made in a rock-shelter during its excavation in the
+autumn of 1909 by M. Peyrony. A human skeleton was found in the floor of
+the grotto, and below strata characterised by Mousterian implements. The
+bones were excessively fragile, and though the greatest care was taken in
+their removal, the skull on arrival at Paris was in a condition described
+by Professor Boule (L'Anthropologie, 1911, p. 118) as 'tres brisee.' No
+detailed account has yet appeared, though even in its fragmentary
+condition, the specimen is sure to provide valuable information. From the
+photographs taken while the skeleton lay _in situ_ after its exposure, it
+is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion as to its characters. But
+in regard to these, some resemblance at least (in the jaws) to the
+Neanderthal type can be detected.
+
+M. Peyrony found also in the same year and in the same region (at Le Pech
+de l'Aze) the cranium of a child, assignable to the same epoch as the
+skeleton of La Ferrassie. But so far no further details have been
+published.
+
+
+                     _Forbes Quarry_ (_Gibraltar_).
+
+The human skull thus designated was found in the year 1848. It was, so to
+speak, rediscovered by Messrs Busk and Falconer. The former authority
+described the specimen in 1864, but this description is only known from
+an abstract in the Reports of the British Association. Broca published an
+account of the osteological characters a few years later. After 1882, the
+skull again fell into obscurity for some twenty years: thereafter it
+attracted the attention of Dr Macnamara, Professor Schwalbe, and above
+all of Professor Sollas, who published the first detailed and critical
+account in 1907. This has stimulated yet other researches, particularly
+those of Professor Sera (of Florence) in 1909, and the literature thus
+growing up bids fair to rival that of the Neanderthal skeleton. A most
+important feature of the specimen consists in the fact that the bones of
+the face have remained intact and in connection with the skull. But the
+mandible is wanting, and the molar teeth of the upper set are absent.
+
+As may be gathered from the tracing published by Dr Sera (cf. Fig. 16)
+the upper part of the brain-case is imperfect. Nevertheless the contour
+has been restored, and the Neanderthal-like features of distinct
+brow-ridges, followed by a low flattened cranial curve, are recognisable
+at once. The facial profile is almost complete, and in this respect the
+Forbes Quarry skull stood alone until the discovery of the specimen from
+La Chapelle. Since that incident, this distinction is not absolute, but
+the Forbes Quarry skull is still unique amidst the other fossils in
+respect of the bones forming what is called the cranial base. In no
+other specimen hitherto found, are these bones so complete, or so well
+preserved in their natural position.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 16. Outline tracing and sectional view of the
+                 Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. The various angles are
+                 used for comparative purposes. (From Sera.)]
+
+The Forbes Quarry skull is clearly of Neanderthaloid type as regards the
+formation of the brain-case; in respect of the face it resembles in
+general the skull from La Chapelle. But in respect of the estimated
+capacity of the brain-case (estimated at 1100 c.c.), the Forbes Quarry
+skull falls far short of both those other examples. Moreover the cranial
+base assigns to it an extremely lowly position. The individual is
+supposed by some to have been of the female sex, but there is no great
+certainty about this surmise. The enormous size of the eye-cavities and
+of the opening of the nose confer a very peculiar appearance upon the
+face, and are best seen in the full-face view. Some other features of the
+skull will be considered in the concluding chapter, when its relation to
+skulls of the Neanderthal type will be discussed in detail.
+
+
+                           _Andalusia, Spain._
+
+In 1910, Colonel Willoughby Verner discovered several fragments of a
+human skeleton in a cave in the Serrania de Ronda. These fragments have
+been presented to the Hunterian Museum. They seem to be absolutely
+mineralised. Though imperfect, they indicate that their possessor was
+adult and of pygmy stature. The thigh-bone in particular is of interest,
+for an upper fragment presents a curious conformation of the rounded
+prominence called the greater trochanter. In this feature, and in regard
+to the small size of the head of the bone, the femur is found to differ
+from most other ancient fossil thigh-bones, and from those of modern
+human beings, with the exception of some pygmy types, viz. the dwarf-like
+cave-dwellers of Aurignac (compared by Pruner-Bey in 1868 to the
+Bushmen), the aborigines of the Andaman islands, and the aboriginal
+Bushmen of South Africa. A full description of the bones has not been
+published, but will probably appear very shortly.
+
+
+                      _Grimaldi_ (_Mentone Caves_).
+
+Among the numerous human skeletons yielded by the caves of Mentone, two
+were discovered at a great depth in a cave known as the 'Grotte des
+Enfants.' The excavations were set on foot by the Prince of Monaco, and
+these particular skeletons have been designated the 'Grimaldi' remains.
+
+Their chief interest (apart from the evidence as to a definite interment
+having taken place) consists in the alleged presence of 'negroid'
+characters. The skeletons are those of a young man (cf. Fig. 17), and an
+aged woman. The late Professor Gaudry examined the jaw of the male
+skeleton. He noted the large dimensions of the teeth, the prognathism,
+the feeble development of the chin, and upon such grounds pointed out the
+similarity of this jaw to those of aboriginal natives of Australia. Some
+years later Dr Verneau, in describing the same remains, based a claim to
+(African) negroid affinity on those characters, adding thereto evidence
+drawn from a study of the limb bones. In both male and female alike, the
+lower limbs are long and slender, while the forearm and shin-bones are
+relatively long when compared respectively with the arm and the
+thigh-bones.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 17. Profile view of young male skull of the type
+                 designated that of 'Grimaldi,' and alleged to present
+                 'negroid' features. _Locality._ Deeper strata in the
+                 Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Birkner, after
+                 Verneau, modified.)]
+
+From a review of the evidence it seems that the term 'negroid' is
+scarcely justified, and there is no doubt that the Grimaldi skeletons
+could be matched without difficulty by skeletons of even recent date.
+Herein they are strongly contrasted with skeletons of the Neanderthal
+group. And although modern Europeans undoubtedly may possess any of the
+osteological characters claimed as 'negroid' by Dr Verneau, nevertheless
+the African negro races possess those characters more frequently and more
+markedly. Caution in accepting the designation 'negroid' is therefore
+based upon reluctance to allow positive evidence from two or three
+characters to outweigh numerous negative indications; and besides this
+consideration, it will be admitted that two specimens provide but a
+feeble basis for supporting the superstructure thus laid on their
+characters. Lastly Dr Verneau has been at some pains to shew that skulls
+of the 'Grimaldi-negroid' type persist in modern times. Yet the
+possessors of many and probably most such modern crania were white men
+and not negroes.
+
+Enough has however been related to shew how widely the skeletons from the
+'Grotte des Enfants' differ from the Palaeolithic remains associated as
+the Neanderthal type.
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+_South America._ With the exception of Pithecanthropus, all the
+discoveries mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were made in Europe.
+From other parts of the world, actual human remains referable to earlier
+geological epochs are scanty save in South America. The discoveries made
+in this part of the New World have been described at great length. In
+many instances, claims to extraordinary antiquity have been made on their
+behalf. It is necessary therefore to examine the credentials of such
+specimens. Upon an examination of the evidence, I have come to the
+conclusion that two instances only deserve serious attention and
+criticism.
+
+
+                               _Baradero._
+
+Fragmentary remains of a human skeleton: the mandible is the best
+preserved portion; unfortunately the front part has been broken off so
+that no conclusion can be formed as to the characters of the chin.
+Otherwise in regard to its proportions, some resemblance is found with
+the mandible of the Spy skull (No. 1). More important and definite is the
+direction of the grinding surfaces of the molar teeth. In the lower jaw,
+this surface is said to look forwards. The interest of this observation
+consists in the fact that the tooth from Taubach presents the same
+feature, which is unusual.
+
+Beyond these, the skeleton from the loess of Baradero presents no
+distinctive features save the remarkable length of the upper limbs.
+
+
+                            _Monte Hermoso._
+
+From this region two bones were obtained at different dates. These are an
+atlas vertebra (the vertebra next to the skull) and a thigh-bone. The
+latter is of less than pygmy dimensions. Both are from fully adult
+skeletons.
+
+An attempt has been made to reconstruct an individual (the Tetraprothomo
+of Ameghino) to which the two bones should be referred. It will be
+noticed that the circumstances bear some, although a very faint, analogy
+to those in which the remains of Pithecanthropus were found. The results
+are however extraordinarily different. Professor Branco has ably shewn
+that in the case of the bones from Monte Hermoso, the association in one
+and the same skeleton would provide so large a skull in proportion to the
+rest of the body, that the result becomes not only improbable, but
+impossible. It is therefore necessary to treat the bones separately. If
+this is done, there is no reason to regard the thigh-bone as other than
+that of a large monkey of one of the varieties known to have inhabited
+South America in prehistoric as well as in recent times.
+
+The vertebra is more interesting. It is small but thick and strong in a
+degree out of proportion to its linear dimensions. Professor
+Lehmann-Nitsche supposes that it may have formed part of a skeleton like
+that of Pithecanthropus, that is to say that it is not part of a pygmy
+skeleton. On the other hand, Dr Rivet considers that the Monte Hermoso
+vertebra could be matched exactly by several specimens in the large
+collection of exotic human skeletons in the National Museum, Paris. Be
+this as it may, there is no doubt that the atlas vertebra in question
+constitutes the most interesting discovery of its kind made so far in
+South America. It is important to notice that time after time the
+attempts made to demonstrate the early origin of Man in the American
+Continent have resulted in failure, which in some instances has been
+regrettably ignominious.
+
+
+              _Combe Capelle_ (_H. aurignacensis hauseri_).
+
+Returning to Europe, it is to be noted that in a rock-shelter near
+Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), the excavations of Dr Hauser led to the
+discovery in 1909 of an entire human skeleton of the male sex. The
+interment (for such it was) had taken place in the Aurignacian period.
+The skeleton presents a very striking appearance. In stature, no
+important divergence from the Neanderthal type can be noted. But the more
+vertical forehead, more boldly-curved arc of the brain-case, the
+diminished brow-ridges, large mastoid processes and distinct canine
+fossae provide a complete contrast between the Aurignac man and those of
+the Neanderthal group. Moreover the Aurignac jaw has a slight projection
+at the chin, where an 'internal process' is now distinct. The brain-case
+has dolicho-cephalic proportions in a marked degree. The limb bones are
+straight and slender, and not so much enlarged in the regions of the
+several joints.
+
+The Aurignac skeleton of Combe Capelle has been associated with several
+others by Professor Klaatsch. By some authorities they are considered as
+transitional forms bridging the gap between the early Palaeolithic types
+and those of the existing Hominidae. But Professor Klaatsch evidently
+regards them as intruders and invaders of the territory previously
+occupied by the more lowly Neanderthaloid type.
+
+
+                             _Galley Hill._
+
+Among the skeletons which have been thus associated with the Aurignac
+man, are three which have for many years attracted the attention of
+anthropologists. For this reason, no detailed account of their characters
+will be given here. Of the three instances referred to, two are the
+fragmentary skull-caps of the skeletons found at Bruex and at Bruenn in
+Moravia. The latter specimen is generally described as Bruenn (91) to
+distinguish it from Bruenn (85), a different and earlier find of less
+interest.
+
+It will suffice to mention here that both specimens agree in possessing
+what may be described as a distinctly mitigated form of the characters so
+strongly developed in the Neanderthal skull and its allies. The Aurignac
+and Bruex skulls are distinctly longer and narrower than that of Bruenn
+(91). The limb bones are not available for the purposes of evidence.
+
+The third specimen possesses a very much greater interest. It is known as
+the Galley Hill skeleton from the site of its discovery near Northfleet
+in Kent. Since it was first described by Mr E. T. Newton (in 1895), much
+literature has accumulated about the difficult problems presented by the
+Galley Hill skeleton. By some authors it is regarded as clearly
+associated with the other examples just mentioned (Bruex, Bruenn, and
+Aurignac). Others reject its claims to high antiquity; of the latter some
+are courteous, others are scornful, but all are absolutely decided.
+Having investigated the literature as well as I could, and having seen
+the cranium, I decided that the claims to great antiquity made on its
+behalf do really justify its inclusion. But I am quite convinced that the
+skeleton will give no more than very general indications. Thus the bones
+are fragile in the extreme. And besides this, the skull is so contorted
+that measurements made in the usual way must be extraordinarily
+misleading and the possible error is too great to be successfully allowed
+for (cf. Fig. 18).
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 18. Outline tracing of the Galley Hill skull,
+                 viewed from above. (From Klaatsch.)
+                 --- Galley Hill.          =---= Ancient German.
+                 ...  Neanderthal.         =...=  Modern South German.]
+
+To insist upon these points is the more important since nowadays various
+indices based on such measurements of the Galley Hill cranium will be
+found tabulated with data yielded by other skulls, and yet no mark of
+qualification distinguishes the former figures.
+
+The description of the skeleton may be given in a very few words. In the
+great majority of its characters, it is not seen to differ from modern
+human beings (though the stature is small, viz. 1600 mm., 5 ft. 3 in.).
+And so far as I am able to judge, the characters claimed as distinctive
+(separating the Galley Hill skull from modern dolichocephalic European
+skulls) are based upon observations containing a very large possibility
+of error.
+
+Having regard to such statements, the inference is that the Galley Hill
+skull does not in fact differ essentially from its modern European
+counterparts. Similar conclusions have been formed in regard to the other
+parts of this skeleton. It is important to note that the specimen does
+not lose its interest on this account.
+
+
+                               _Summary._
+
+From the foregoing descriptions, it follows that of the most ancient
+remains considered, at least three divisions can be recognised. In the
+first place, come the examples described as Pithecanthropus and _Homo
+heidelbergensis_ (Mauer). In the second category come instances as to
+which no reasonable doubt as to their definitely human characters now
+exists (save possibly in the case of the Taubach tooth and the Hermoso
+atlas). Of the members of this second series, two sub-divisions here
+designated (_A_) and (_B_) can be demonstrated; these with the first
+examples complete the threefold grouping set out in the table following,
+with which Table A, p. 85, should be compared.
+
+  GROUP I.  Early ancestral forms.  _Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis._
+
+  GROUP II.
+       _Subdivision A.  Homo primigenius.          Ex. gr. La Chapelle._
+                                                   {H. fossilis. _Ex.
+       _Subdivision B.  H. recens_; with varieties {gr. Galley Hill._
+                                                   {H. sapiens.
+
+Taking the first group (Pithecanthropus and _Homo heidelbergensis_) it is
+to be noticed that close correlation is quite possible. Besides this,
+evidence exists in each case to the effect that far-distant human
+ancestors are hereby revealed to their modern representatives. Of their
+physical characters, distinct indications are given of the possession of
+a small brain in a flattened brain-case associated with powerful jaws;
+the lower part of the face being distinguished by the absence of any
+projection of the chin. The teeth indicate with some degree of
+probability that their diet was of a mixed nature, resembling in this
+respect the condition of many modern savage tribes. Beyond this, the
+evidence is weak and indefinite. It is highly probable that these men
+were not arboreal: though whether they habitually assumed the distinctive
+erect attitude is a point still in doubt. And yet again, while the
+indications are not clear, it is probable that in stature they were
+comparable, if not superior, to the average man of to-day.
+
+Passing from this division to the second, a region of much greater
+certainty is entered. Of the second group, one subdivision (_A_) retains
+certain characters of the earlier forms. Thus the massive continuous
+brow-ridge persists, as do also the flattened brain-case with a large
+mass of jaw-muscle, and a ponderous chinless lower jaw. For the rest, the
+points of contrast are much more prominent than those of similarity. The
+brain has increased in size. This increase is very considerable in
+absolute amount. But relatively also to the size of the possessor, the
+increase in brain-material is even more striking, for the stature and
+consequently bulk and weight are less. The thigh-bone offers important
+points of difference, the earlier long slender form (in _P. erectus_)
+being now replaced by a shorter, curved, thick substitute. If there has
+been inheritance here, marked and aberrant variation is also observed.
+
+The second subdivision (_B_) remains for consideration. Here the stature
+has not appreciably changed. The limb bones are long, slender, and less
+curved than those of the other associated human beings (_A_), and herein
+the earliest type is suggested once more. But the differences occur now
+in the skull. The brain is as large as in the other subdivision (_A_)
+and in modern men. The brain-case is becoming elevated: the brow-ridges
+are undergoing reduction; this process, commencing at their outer ends,
+expresses to some extent the degree of reduction in the muscles and bone
+of the lower jaw. The teeth are smaller and the chin becomes more
+prominent. The distinction from modern types of humanity is often
+impossible.
+
+In the next chapter some account is given of the circumstances under
+which the bones were discovered, and of the nature of their surroundings.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER III
+
+                       ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS AND CAVES
+
+
+The principal characters of the oldest known human remains having been
+thus set forth, the circumstances of their surroundings next demand
+attention. A brief indication of these will be given with the aid of the
+illustrations provided in the original memoirs in each case, and the
+order of descriptions followed in the preceding chapter will be observed.
+
+_Pithecanthropus._ The remains of Pithecanthropus were recovered from an
+alluvial deposit at Trinil. A section of this is shewn in Fig. 19. An
+idea may thus be gained of the very considerable amount of superincumbent
+materials. The associated fauna cannot be compared directly to that of
+any Western European locality. But in comparison with the modern fauna of
+Java, the strata in which the Pithecanthropus was found shew a
+predominance of extinct species, though not of genera. Elephants and
+hippopotami were present: they point to a close relation between the
+fauna of Trinil and that of certain Siwalik strata in India, referred to
+a late Pliocene age. The difference of opinion upon this point has been
+mentioned in the preceding chapter: here it will suffice to repeat that a
+final conclusion does not appear to have been reached, and that the
+experts who have examined the strata in situ still differ from each
+other.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. _A_
+                 vegetable soil. _B_ Sand-rock. _C_ Lapilli-rock. _D_
+                 Level at which the bones were found. _E_ Conglomerate.
+                 _F_ Clay. _H_ Rainy-season level of river. _I_ Dry-season
+                 level of river. (From Dubois.)]
+
+_Mauer._ Impressed by the similarity of the conditions at Mauer to those
+of the fossiliferous tufa-beds near Taubach and Weimar, Dr Schoetensack
+had anticipated the possibility of obtaining valuable fossil relics from
+the former locality. For some twenty years, Dr Schoetensack kept in touch
+with the workmen of Mauer, and thus when the jawbone was found, he was
+summoned at once. Even so, the jaw had been removed from its
+resting-place, and broken in two fragments. Yet there is no doubt as to
+the exact position in which it was found. Sand and loess (a fine earthy
+deposit) had accumulated above it to a thickness of seventy feet. The
+nature of the surroundings may be estimated by reference to the
+illustration (Fig. 20) reproducing Dr Schoetensack's photograph of the
+sand-pit. The sands which contained the mandible represent an alluvial
+deposit, and so far resemble the Trinil beds in Java. The attempt to
+institute an exact comparison would be unprofitable, but on the whole it
+would seem that, of the two, the Mauer sands represent the later stage.
+The fauna associated with the Mauer jaw includes such forms as _Elephas
+antiquus_, _Rhinoceros etruscus_, _Ursus arvernensis_, _U. deningeri_ (an
+ancestral form of _U. spelaeus_), together with a species of horse
+intermediate between _Equus stenonis_, and the fossil horse found at
+Taubach. The cave-lion, bison, and various deer have also been
+recognised.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. X (in white)
+                 position of jawbone when found. (From Birkner, after
+                 Schoetensack.)]
+
+The aspect of this collection shews a marked similarity to that of the
+so-called Forest-bed of Cromer, though at the same time indicating a
+later age. The Mauer jaw must therefore be assigned to the very earliest
+part of the Pleistocene epoch. In his original memoir, Dr Schoetensack
+gave no account of any associated 'industry,' in the form of stone
+implements. But now (1911) Professor Rutot unhesitatingly (though the
+reasons are not stated) ascribes to the horizon of the Mauer jaw, that
+division of the eolithic industries termed by him the "Mafflien." Upon
+the correctness of such a view judgment may well be reserved for the
+present.
+
+_Taubach_. The bone-bed (_Knochenschicht_) of Taubach whence the two
+human teeth were recovered, lies at a depth of some 15 feet (5.2 m.) from
+the adjacent surface-soil. No fewer than eleven distinct horizons have
+been recognised in the superincumbent strata. Palaeoliths had often been
+obtained from the same stratum as that which yielded the human teeth. Dr
+Weiss referred it to the first, i.e. the earlier of two inter-glacial
+periods judged to have occurred in this region. The associated fauna
+includes _Elephas antiquus_, _Rhinoceros merckii_, _Bison priscus_, with
+Cervidae and representatives of swine, beaver and a bear. The similarity
+of this assemblage to that of the Mauer Sands has been noted already.
+
+The hippopotamus however does not seem to have been recorded in either
+locality. Nevertheless, the general aspect of the mammalian fauna is
+'southern' (_faune chaude_ of French writers). Upon this conclusion, much
+depends, for the Palaeolithic implements (claimed as contemporaneous with
+the extinct 'southern' mammals recorded in the foregoing paragraphs) are
+said to correspond to the type of Le Moustier. But Mousterian implements
+are (it is alleged) practically never associated with 'southern' animals,
+so that in this respect the Taubach bone-bed provides a paradox. Without
+discussing this paradox at length, it may be stated that the implements
+just described as 'Mousterian' are not recognised as such by all the
+experts. Thus Obermaier identifies them with those of Levallois, _i.e._ a
+late S. Acheul type (cf. Obermaier, 1909). Others declare that the type
+is not that of Le Moustier, but of Chelles. The latter type of implement
+is found habitually in association with the southern fauna, and thus the
+paradox described above may prove to be apparent only and not real. But
+the unravelling of the different opinions relating to the Taubach finds
+is among the easier tasks presented to anyone desirous of furnishing a
+clear statement of the actual state of our knowledge on these matters.
+The difficulties with which the whole subject bristles may thus be
+realised.
+
+_Krapina._ Researches productive of evidence as to the existence of
+Palaeolithic man in Croatia, were commenced at Krapina so long ago as
+August, 1899, by Professor Kramberger. A preliminary report was
+published in December, 1899. Until the year 1904 these researches passed
+almost unnoticed in this country. The site was not exhausted until 1905.
+The actual excavations were made in a rock-shelter on the right bank of
+the Krapini[vc]a river, near the village of Krapina. The rock-shelter had
+been to some extent invaded not long before the archaeological work
+commenced, and evidence of early human occupation of the site was
+revealed in the form of dark bands of earth, containing much charcoal.
+These bands were seen as lines in the lower parts of the exposed section
+of the cave contents. Fragments of human and other bones to the number of
+several thousands were removed. In one season's work six hundred stone
+implements were found.
+
+A section of the several strata has been published and is reproduced in
+Fig. 21. Human bones or artefacts were found throughout a wide series of
+strata, in which no variations of a cultural nature were detected.
+Throughout the period of human occupation, the Palaeolithic inmates of
+the cave remained on an unaltered and rather lowly level of culture. This
+is described by some authorities as Mousterian, by others as Aurignacian;
+in either case as of an early Palaeolithic aspect.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. 3, 4
+                 strata with human remains. 1 _b_ former level of
+                 river-bed. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)]
+
+But when the animal remains are considered, Krapina seems to present the
+difficulty already encountered in the case of Taubach. For there is no
+doubt but that the 'southern' fauna is to some extent represented at
+Krapina. This qualified form of statement is employed because one
+representative only, viz. _Rhinoceros merckii_, has been discovered,
+whereas its habitual companions, _Elephas antiquus_ and Hippopotamus,
+have left no traces at Krapina. Other animals associated with the
+cave-men of Krapina are not so commonly found in the presence of the
+_Rhinoceros merckii_. Thus the _Ursus spelaeus_, _U. arctos_, _Bos
+primigenius_, and the Arctomys (Marmot) are suggestive of a more northern
+fauna. But the presence of even a possibly stray _Rhinoceros merckii_ is
+sufficient to confer an aspect of great antiquity on this early Croatian
+settlement. No evidence of formal interments has come to light, and as
+regards the cannibalistic habits of the human cave-dwellers, no more than
+the merest surmise exists.
+
+_S. Brelade's Bay, Jersey._ In the cave thus designated, old hearths were
+met with at a depth of twenty-five feet below the surface. Human beings
+are represented by teeth only. No evidence of interments has been
+recorded. The implements are of Mousterian type. Associated with the
+hearths and implements were many fragmentary remains of animals. Up to
+the present time, the following forms have been identified: _Rhinoceros
+tichorhinus_ (the hairy rhinoceros), the Reindeer, and two varieties of
+Horse. So far as this evidence goes, the age assigned to the implements
+is supported, or at least not contra-indicated. It is most improbable
+that the period represented can be really earlier than the Mousterian,
+though it might be somewhat later. That the Krapina teeth (which so
+curiously resemble those of S. Brelade's Bay in respect of the fusion of
+their roots) should be assigned to the same (Mousterian) epoch is perhaps
+significant.
+
+_La Chapelle-aux-Saints_ (_Correze_). This is the best example of an
+interment referable to the early Palaeolithic age (Fig. 22). Two reasons
+for this statement may be given. In the first place, the skeleton lay in
+a distinctly excavated depression, beneath which no signs of an earlier
+settlement are recorded. Secondly, the superincumbent strata can be
+assigned to one period only of the archaeological series, viz. that of Le
+Moustier. Indications of the preceding period (S. Acheul) as well as of
+the subsequent one (Aurignac) are practically negligible. Moreover the
+surroundings had not been disturbed since the interment: this is shewn by
+the leg-bones of a large bovine animal (Bison or Bos) found in their
+natural relations just above the head of the human skeleton.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints
+                 (Correze). (From Boule.)]
+
+The latter lay on the back, the right arm bent, the left extended; both
+legs were contracted and to the right. In general, this attitude recalls
+that of the skeletons of La Ferrassie and the Grotte des Enfants
+(Grimaldi). At Le Moustier too, the skeleton was found in a somewhat
+similar position.
+
+At La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the associated fauna includes the Reindeer,
+Horse, a large bovine form (? Bison), _Rhinoceros tichorhinus_, the Ibex,
+Wolf, Marmot, Badger and Boar.
+
+It would seem that this particular cave had served only as a tomb. For
+other purposes its vertical extent is too small. The stone artefacts are
+all perfect tools: no flakes or splinters being found as in habitations.
+The animal remains are supposed to be relics of a funeral feast (or
+feasts). But the presence of the Rhinoceros is perhaps antagonistic to
+such an explanation.
+
+_Le Moustier_ (_Dordogne_). The skeleton lay on its right side, the right
+arm bent and supporting the head; the left arm was extended. The stratum
+upon which the body rested consisted largely of worked flint implements.
+These are assigned to the later Acheulean and earlier Mousterian epochs.
+
+Two features in contrast with the conditions at La Chapelle are to be
+noticed. It is doubtful whether the skeleton at Le Moustier had been
+literally interred. It seems rather to have been placed on what was at
+the time the floor of the grotto, and then covered partly with earth on
+which implements were scattered. Indications of a definite grave were
+found at La Chapelle. Again at Le Moustier, other parts of the same
+grotto had been occupied as habitations of the living. At La Chapelle
+this seems not to have been the case.
+
+The evidence of the accompanying animal remains also differs in the two
+cases. At Le Moustier, only small and very fragmentary animal bones with
+the tooth of an ox were found in the immediate vicinity of the human
+skeleton. An extended search revealed bones of _Bos primigenius_ in the
+cave. No bones of the Reindeer were found and their absence is specially
+remarked by Professor Klaatsch, as evidence that the skeleton at Le
+Moustier is of greater antiquity than the skeleton accompanied by
+reindeer bones at La Chapelle. In any case, it would seem that no great
+lapse of time separates the two strata.
+
+_La Ferrassie._ The skeleton was found in the same attitude as those of
+La Chapelle and Le Moustier, viz. in the dorsal position, the right arm
+bent, the left extended, both legs being strongly flexed at the knee and
+turned to the right side. The bones were covered by some 3.5 m. of
+_debris_: stone implements were yielded by strata above and below the
+body respectively. Beneath the skeleton, the implements are of Acheulean
+type, while above and around it the type of Le Moustier was encountered.
+Aurignacian implements occurred still nearer the surface.
+
+In regard to the evidence of interment the conditions here resemble those
+at Le Moustier rather than those of La Chapelle. The human skeleton did
+not appear to have been deposited in a grave, but simply laid on the
+ground, covered no doubt by earth upon which flint implements were
+scattered. But the cave continued to be occupied until at the close of
+the Aurignacian period a fall of rock sealed up the entrance. It is
+difficult to realise the conditions of life in such a cave, after the
+death of a member of the community, unless, as among the cave-dwelling
+Veddas of Ceylon, the cave were temporarily abandoned (Seligmann, 1911).
+It is possible that the normal accumulation of animal remains created
+such an atmosphere as would not be greatly altered by the addition of a
+human corpse, for Professor Tylor has recorded instances of such
+interments among certain South American tribes. But it is also
+conceivable that the enormously important change in custom from
+inhumation to cremation, may owe an origin to some comparatively simple
+circumstance of this kind. The animal remains at La Ferrassie include
+Bison, Stag, and Horse, with a few Reindeer. The general aspect is thus
+concordant with that at La Chapelle.
+
+_Pech de l'Aze._ It is impossible to decide whether the child's skull had
+been buried intentionally or not. The associated fauna is apparently
+identical with that of La Ferrassie and La Chapelle.
+
+_Forbes Quarry_ (_Gibraltar_). Of the surroundings of the Forbes Quarry
+skull at the time of its discovery nothing is known. In 1910 the present
+writer explored Forbes Quarry and a small cave opening into it. But no
+evidence of the presence of prehistoric man was obtained. Bones of recent
+mammalia and certain molluscs found during the excavations, throw no
+light on this subject.
+
+_Andalusia._ At the time of writing, only the following information is
+available as to the surroundings of these human cave-bones. They were
+discovered on or near the floor of a deep fissure leading to a series of
+labyrinthine passages. The walls of the fissure or cave were decorated
+with drawings of animals resembling those at Cretas in Aragon. Besides
+the mineralised bones, other fragments of less antiquated aspect were
+found. Potsherds were also obtained, but I have no information as to the
+occurrence of implements.
+
+_Grotte des Enfants_ (_Mentone_). With regard to the two 'negroid'
+skeletons of this cave, the first important point is the enormous
+thickness of accumulated _debris_ by which the bones were covered. A
+depth of some twenty-four feet had been reached before the discovery was
+made (Fig. 23).
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone.
+                 _I._ stratum in which the "Grimaldi" skeletons were
+                 found. (From Boule.)]
+
+The bodies had been definitely interred, large stones being found in
+position, adjusted so as to protect the heads particularly. The bodies
+had been placed on the right side. Of the woman, both arms were bent as
+were the lower limbs. The male skeleton has the right arm flexed, but the
+left extended (as in the cases of La Chapelle, Le Moustier, and La
+Ferrassie).
+
+It is practically certain that the skeletons do not belong to an epoch
+represented, as regards its culture or fauna, by strata lower than that
+which supported the human remains. This conclusion is very important
+here. For the evidence of the stone implements accompanying the human
+bones is fairly definite: it points to the Mousterian age. The animal
+bones are those of the Reindeer and Cave Hyaena. The presence of the
+former animal supports the conclusion arrived at on the evidence of the
+human artefacts. The presence of the Cave Hyaena does not controvert that
+conclusion.
+
+But an interesting fact remains to be considered. Below the two human
+skeletons, the animal remains are those of the 'southern' fauna. All the
+characteristic representatives were found, viz. _Elephas antiquus_,
+_Rhinoceros merckii_, and Hippopotamus. The Hyaena was also associated
+with these large animals. It is not clearly stated whether implements of
+Mousterian type occurred in these, the deepest strata of the cave-floor.
+Were this so, the contention made in respect of the Taubach implements
+(cf. _supra_, p. 67) would be remarkably corroborated, as would also the
+somewhat similar suggestion made in regard to Krapina. For the moment,
+however, it must suffice to attribute these human remains of negroid
+aspect to the Mousterian period at Mentone. Inasmuch as the reindeer
+appears in several strata overlying the remains of the Grimaldi race (for
+so it has been named by Dr Verneau), it is certainly conceivable that the
+two individuals are Aurignacian or even later. But this is to enter a
+wilderness of surmise. Human skeletons were actually found in those more
+superficial strata and also were associated with the Reindeer. But their
+cranial features are of a higher type (Cro-Magnon) and contrast very
+clearly with those of the more deeply buried individuals.
+
+_South America._ The two discoveries mentioned in the preceding chapter
+were made in the so-called Pampas formation of Argentina. This formation
+has been subdivided by geologists into three successive portions, viz.
+upper, middle and lower. The distinction is based partly upon evidence
+derived from the actual characters of deposits which differ according to
+their level. But the molluscan fauna has also been used as a means of
+distinction. The whole formation is stated by some to be fluviatile.
+Other observers speak of it as Loess. This need not necessarily exclude a
+fluviatile origin, but speaking generally that term now suggests an
+aerial rather than a subaqueous deposit. The upper subdivision is
+designated the yellow loess in contrast to the brown loess forming the
+middle layer. Opinion is much divided as to the exact geological age of
+the Pampas formation. Ameghino refers it to the Pliocene period,
+excepting the lower divisions which he regards as upper Miocene.
+Professor Lehmann-Nitsche assigns Pliocene antiquity to the lowest
+subdivision only. Dr Steinmann regards the middle and lower subdivisions
+as equivalents of the 'older' loess of European Pleistocene deposits. The
+latter determinations are more probably correct than is the first.
+
+_Baradero._ The Baradero skeleton was obtained from the middle formation
+or brown loess, in a locality marked by the presence of mollusca
+corresponding with modern forms, and contrasted with the Tertiary
+Argentine mollusca. The skeleton was in a 'natural' (_i.e._ not a
+contracted) position, the head being depressed on the front of the chest.
+No associated implements or remains of mammalian skeletons are recorded.
+
+_Monte Hermoso._ The vertebra and femur were found in the lower
+subdivision of the Pampas formation. We have seen that Ameghino refers
+this to the Miocene epoch: Lehmann-Nitsche speaks of it as Pliocene,
+Steinmann's opinion suggests a still later date, while Scott also
+declares that no greater age than that of the Pleistocene period can be
+assigned. The two specimens were obtained at very different times, an
+interval of many years separating the dates of the respective
+discoveries. So far as is known, no mammalian or other animal remains
+have been yielded by the strata in question, so that the whole case in
+regard to evidence is one of the most unsatisfactory on record. Indeed
+the whole question of 'dating' the Argentine discoveries, whether
+absolutely or relatively, must be regarded as an unsolved problem.
+
+_Combe Capelle_ (_Dordogne_). The circumstances of this discovery were as
+follows. The skeleton lay in an extended position, and it had been placed
+in an excavation made for the purpose of interment. This excavation
+entered a stratum distinguished as Mousterian. But the interment is
+considered to be later, and of Aurignacian antiquity. Stone implements of
+Aurignacian type were disposed around the skeleton: in addition to these,
+a number of molluscan shells were arranged about the skull. This
+suggestion of ornament would of itself suggest the later period to which
+the skeleton is assigned. No remains of animals are mentioned in the
+accounts accessible to me.
+
+_Bruex_ (_Bohemia_). The Bruex skeleton was discovered in 1871. It lay some
+five feet beneath the surface in a deposit which seems to be an ancient
+one of fluviatile origin. The Biela river is not far from the spot. The
+bones were very fragmentary, and in particular the skull-cap has been
+reconstructed from no less than a dozen fragments. The limb bones were
+also fractured. Near the skeleton, some remains of an Ox were found on
+the same level. Two feet above the skeleton, a stone implement, seemingly
+a Neolithic axe, was brought to light.
+
+The information is thus meagre in the extreme, and when the condition of
+the skull is taken into account, it is evident that the Bruex skeleton is
+not one upon which far-reaching arguments can be successfully based. The
+interest of the specimen depends above all upon the results of the
+careful analysis of its characters made by Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906).
+
+_Bruenn_ (1871). This discovery was made at a depth of 4.5 metres in red
+loess. Close to the human bones lay the tusk and the shoulder-blade of a
+Mammoth. The same stratum subsequently yielded the skull of a young
+Rhinoceros (_R. tichorhinus_): some ribs of a Rhinoceros are scored or
+marked in a way suggestive of human activity: other ribs of the same kind
+were artificially perforated. More noteworthy, however, is a human
+figurine carved in ivory of a Mammoth tusk. Several hundreds of the shell
+of _Dentalium badense_ lying close to the human remains were truncated in
+such a way as to suggest that they had once formed a necklace.
+
+_Galley Hill_ (_Kent_). The gravel-pit whence the skeleton was obtained
+invades the 'high-level terrace-gravel' of the Thames valley. Such is the
+opinion of expert geologists (Hinton[26]). In the gravel-pit a section
+through ten feet of gravel is exposed above the chalk. The bones were
+eight feet from the top of the gravel. Palaeolithic implements of a
+primitive type have been obtained from the same deposit at Galley Hill.
+No precise designation seems to have been assigned to them. From the
+published figures, they seem to correspond to the earlier Acheulean or to
+the Chellean type. One in particular, resembles the implements found at
+Reculver, and I have recently seen similar specimens which had been
+obtained by dredging off the Kentish coast near Whitstable. Some of the
+Galley Hill implements are compared to the high plateau forms from
+Ightham. These must be of great antiquity. Professor Rutot in 1903
+assigned the Galley Hill skeleton to a period by him named Mafflian. This
+diagnosis seems to have been based upon the characters of the implements.
+Recently however (1909) Professor Rutot has brought the skeleton down
+into the Strepyan epoch, which is much less ancient than that of Maffle.
+
+The associated fauna comes now into consideration. From the Galley Hill
+gravel-pit no mammalian remains other than the human skeleton have been
+reported, but the fauna of the 'high-level terrace' has been ascertained
+by observations in the vicinity of Galley Hill as well as in other parts
+of the Thames basin. The mollusc _Cyrena fluminalis_, indicative of a
+sub-tropical climate, has been found in these strata. As regards the
+mammalian fauna, it is interesting to compare the list given by Mr E. T.
+Newton in 1895, with that published by Mr M. A. C. Hinton in 1910 on the
+basis of independent observations.
+
+                        _Mr Newton's list_, 1895.
+
+     1. Elephas primigenius.
+     2. Hippopotamus.
+     3. Rhinoceros: species uncertain.
+     4. Bos.           "        "
+     5. Equus.         "        "
+     6. Cervus.        "        "
+     7. Felis leo.     "        "
+
+                        _Mr Hinton's list_, 1910.
+
+     1. Elephas antiquus (a more primitive form than E. primigenius).
+     2. No Hippopotamus (this occurs later, in the Middle Terrace).
+     3. Rhinoceros megarhinus.
+     4. Bos: species uncertain.
+     5. Equus: species similar to the Pliocene E. stenonis.
+     6. Cervus: 3 species: one resembles the Fallow-deer (C. dama), a
+        'southern' form.
+     7. Felis leo.
+     8. Sus: species uncertain: bones of limbs shew primitive features.
+     9. Canis: species uncertain.
+    10. Delphinus: species uncertain.
+    11. Trogontherium: species differing from the Pliocene form.
+    12. Various smaller rodents, such as Voles.
+
+No definitely 'Arctic' mammals are recorded: the general aspect of the
+above fauna shews a strong similarity to the Pliocene fauna, which
+appears to have persisted to this epoch without much alteration of the
+various types represented.
+
+
+                                 TABLE A
+
+  Table headings:
+  Col I:   Classification by characters of human bones[1]
+  Col II:  Example
+  Col III: Circumstances and surroundings - Immediate Surroundings (ImS)
+  Col IV:  Circumstances and surroundings - Associated animals (Asa)
+  Col V:   Circumstances and surroundings - Name of types of associated
+                                            implements (Nai)
+
+        I               II                III, IV, V                VI
+  Division II
+   Subdivision (1) Combe Capelle  ImS Cave                       Interment
+      _B_                         Asa Reindeer
+                                  Nai Aurignacian
+
+       "       (2) Galley Hill    ImS Alluvial drift of              ?
+                                      High Terrace[3]                No
+                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros megarhinus[2]
+                                      {Trogontherium (Rodent)
+                                      {Mimomys (Rodent)
+                                  Nai  Acheulean to ?Strepyan
+
+       "       (3) Grimaldi       ImS Cave                       Interment
+                    (Mentone)     Asa {Reindeer
+                                      {Hyaena spelaea
+                                      {Felis spelaea
+                                      {(Marmot in higher strata)
+                                  Nai Mousterian ?
+                                       also Aurignacian
+
+   Subdivision (4) La Ferrassie   ImS Cave                       Interment
+      _A_                         Asa {Reindeer
+                                      {Bison priscus
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (5) Pech de l'Aze  ImS Cave                        (Head
+                                  Asa {Reindeer                    only
+                                      {Bison priscus              found?)
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (6) Le Moustier    ImS Cave                       Interment
+                                  Asa {Bos primigenius
+                                      {_No reindeer_
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (7) La Chapelle    ImS Cave                       Interment
+                                  Asa {Reindeer (_scarce_)
+                                      {Bison priscus
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (8) S. Brelade     ImS Cave                           ?
+                                  Asa {Reindeer
+                                      {Bos ? sp.
+                                      {Rhinoceros tichorhinus
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (9) Krapina        ImS Cave (Rock-shelter)
+                                  Asa {Rhinoceros merckii
+                                      {Cave Bear
+                                      {Bos primigenius
+                                      {Marmot (Arctomys)
+                                  Nai Mousterian
+
+       "       (10) Taubach       ImS Alluvial Deposit[4]            No
+                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros merckii
+                                      {Felis leo
+                                      {No Hippopotamus
+                                  Nai {? Mousterian
+                                      {? Upper Acheulean
+                                      {  = Levallois
+                                      {? Chellean
+
+  Division I   (11) Mauer         ImS Alluvial deposit               No
+                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros etruscus(5)
+                                      {Ursus arvernensis
+                                      {No Hippopotamus
+                                  Nai None found
+
+       "       (12) Trinil        ImS Alluvial deposit               No
+                                  Asa {Hippopotamus?             interment
+                                      {Rhinoceros sivasoudaicus
+                                      {Other Sivalik types
+                                  Nai None found by Dubois
+
+  [1] South American remains and some others are omitted owing to
+      insufficiency of data relating to their surroundings.
+
+  [2] Names of fossil varieties of Rhinoceros. These are very confused.
+      The term R. _leptorhinus_ should be avoided altogether. R.
+      _megarhinus_ represents the R. _leptorhinus_ of Falconer and
+      Cuvier. R. _merckii_ represents R. _hemitoechus_ of Falconer, which
+      is the R. _leptorhinus_ of Owen and Boyd Dawkins. R. _tichorhinus_
+      is R. _antiquitatis_ of Falconer and some German writers.
+
+  [3] The formation of the High Terrace drift is earlier than the date of
+      arrival of the 'Siberian' invasion of Britain by certain Voles.
+      Already in Pliocene times, some Voles had come into Britain from
+      the south-east of Europe. But the Galley Hill man, if contemporary
+      with the High Terrace drift, had arrived in Britain ages before the
+      appearance of _Homo aurignacensis_ supposed by Klaatsch to be
+      closely allied, and to have come into Europe through Central if not
+      Northern Asia. The 'High Terrace' mammals have a 'Pliocene' facies.
+
+  [4] The upper strata at Taubach yielded Reindeer and Mammoth. Near
+      Weimar, Wuest says the stratigraphical positions of _R. merckii_ and
+      _R. antiquitatis_ have been found inverted.
+
+  [5] Typical Val d'Arno (Pliocene) form.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER IV
+
+                    ASSOCIATED ANIMALS AND IMPLEMENTS
+
+
+The most important of recent discoveries of the remains of early
+prehistoric man have now been considered. Not only the evidence of the
+actual remains, but also that furnished by their surroundings has been
+called upon. It is evident that the last decade has been remarkably
+productive of additions to the stock of information on these subjects.
+
+In the next place, enquiry has to be made whether any relation exists
+between the two methods of grouping, viz. (1) that in which the
+characters of the skeletons are taken as the test, and (2) that dependent
+upon the nature of the surroundings. A first attempt to elucidate the
+matter can be made by means of a tabulated statement, such as that which
+follows.
+
+In constructing this table, the various finds have been ordinated
+according to the degree of resemblance to modern Europeans presented by
+the respective skeletons. Thus Division II with Subdivision _B_ heads the
+list. Then follows Subdivision _A_, and finally Division I will be found
+in the lowest place. This order having been adopted, the remaining data
+were added in the sequence necessarily imposed upon them thereby.
+
+(_a_) In an analysis of this table the several columns should be
+considered in order. Taking that headed 'Immediate surroundings,' it is
+evident that whereas most of the members of Division II were 'cave-men,'
+two exceptions occur. Of these, the Galley Hill skeleton is by far the
+most remarkable. The Taubach remains represent, it will be remembered, a
+form almost on the extreme confines of humanity. That it should resemble
+the members of Division I, themselves in a similar position, is not very
+remarkable. And indeed it is perhaps in accordance with expectation, that
+remains of the more remote and primitive examples should be discovered,
+so to speak, 'in the open.' All the more noteworthy therefore is the
+position of the Galley Hill man, whose place according to his
+surroundings is at the end of the list opposite to that assigned to him
+by his physical conformation.
+
+(_b_) Passing to the 'Associated animals,' similar conclusions will be
+formed again. Thus in the first place, most of the 'cave-men' were
+accompanied by remains of the Reindeer. Le Moustier and Krapina are
+exceptions but provide Bison or Urus which are elsewhere associated with
+the Reindeer. Otherwise Galley Hill and Taubach again stand out as
+exceptions. Moreover they have again some features in common, just as has
+been noted in respect of their alluvial surroundings. For the Elephant
+(_E. antiquus_) is identical in both instances. But the Rhinoceros of the
+'high level' terrace gravel is not the same as that found at Taubach, and
+though the succession is discussed later, it may be stated at once that
+the _Rhinoceros megarhinus_ has been considered to stand in what may be
+termed a grand-parental relation to that of Taubach (_R. merckii_), the
+_Rhinoceros etruscus_ of the Mauer Sands representing the intervening
+generation (Gaudry[27], 1888). For the various names, reference should be
+made to the list of synonyms appended to Table A. Should further evidence
+of the relative isolation of the Galley Hill skeleton be required, the
+gigantic beaver (Trogontherium) is there to provide it, since nowhere
+else in this list does this rodent appear. The paradoxical position of
+the Galley Hill skeleton having been indicated, it is convenient to deal
+with all the examples of skeletons from alluvial deposits taken as a
+single group, irrespective of their actual characters.
+
+(i) The study of the animals found in the corresponding or identical
+_alluvial deposits_, leads to inferences which may be stated as follows.
+The Trinil (Java) fauna will not be included, since the Javanese and
+European animals are not directly comparable. If attention is confined to
+the remaining instances, viz. Galley Hill, Taubach and Mauer, agreement
+is shewn in respect of the presence of _Elephas antiquus_, and this is
+absent from all the cave-deposits considered here [_v. infra_ (ii) p.
+90]. A rhinoceros appears in all three localities, but is different in
+each. Finally, two (viz. Galley Hill and Mauer) of the three, provide at
+least one very remarkable mammalian form, viz. Trogontherium (_Mimomys
+cantianus_ is equally suggestive) of the high-level gravels, and the
+_Ursus arvernensis_ of the Mauer Sands.
+
+The significance of these animals may be indicated more clearly by the
+following statement. If the history of _Elephas antiquus_ be critically
+traced, this animal appears first in a somewhat hazy atmosphere, viz.
+that of the transition period between Pliocene and Pleistocene times. It
+is a more primitive form of elephant than the Mammoth. Indeed, Gaudry[27]
+(1888) placed it in a directly ancestral relation to the last-mentioned
+elephant. And though the two were contemporary for a space, yet _Elephas
+antiquus_ was the first to disappear. Moreover this elephant has much
+more definite associations with the southern group of mammals than has
+the Mammoth. Its presence is therefore indicative of the considerable
+antiquity of the surrounding deposits, provided always that the latter be
+contemporaneous with it. With regard to the Rhinoceros, the species _R.
+megarhinus_ and _R. etruscus_ have been found in definitely Pliocene
+strata. The former (_R. megarhinus_) seems to have appeared earliest (at
+Montpellier), whereas the Etruscan form owes its name to the late
+Pliocene formations of the Val d'Arno, in which it was originally
+discovered. The third species (_R. merckii_) is somewhat later, but of
+similar age to _Elephas antiquus_, with which it constantly appears. It
+is remarkable that the _R. etruscus_, though not the earliest to appear,
+seems yet to have become extinct before the older _R. megarhinus_. The
+latter was contemporary with _R. merckii_, though it did not persist so
+long as that species. With regard to the three alluvial deposits, the
+Rhinoceros provides a means of distinction not indicated by the
+elephantine representative, and the presence of _R. etruscus_ is a test
+for very ancient deposits. From what has been stated above, it follows
+that of the three localities the Mauer Sands have the more ancient
+facies, and it is significant that here also the human form proves to be
+furthest removed from modern men. But the other localities are not
+clearly differentiated, save that the Taubach strata are perhaps the more
+recent of the two.
+
+Coming next to the 'peculiar' animals; the _Ursus arvernensis_ of Mauer
+is almost as distinctively 'Pliocene' as its associate, _Rhinoceros
+etruscus_. The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable to these,
+nor to the Trogontherium (or Mimomys) of the high-level terrace gravel.
+These animals are also strongly suggestive of the Pliocene fauna.
+
+To sum up, it will be found that the evidence of the Elephant is to the
+effect that these alluvial deposits are of early Pleistocene age. It
+leads to the expectation that the fauna in general will have a
+'southern,' as contrasted with an 'arctic' aspect. From the study of the
+Rhinoceros it appears that the Mauer Sands are probably the most ancient
+in order of time, that the strata of Taubach are the latest of the three
+and that _Elephas antiquus_ will occur there (as indeed it does).
+
+The other animals mentioned clinch the evidence for the Pliocene
+resemblance, and (at latest) the early Pleistocene antiquity of the Mauer
+Sands and the high-level terrace gravels. Within the limits thus
+indicated, the deposit of Mauer is again shewn to be the oldest, followed
+by the terrace-gravels, while Taubach is the latest and youngest of the
+three. All the characteristic animals are now entirely extinct.
+
+For the reasons stated above, the fossil Javanese mammals of Trinil have
+not been discussed. It will suffice to note that on the whole they
+indicate a still earlier period than those of the European deposits in
+question.
+
+(ii) The animals associated with the _cave-men_ now call for
+consideration. The great outstanding feature is the constancy with
+which the Reindeer is found. This leads to a presumption that the climate
+was at least temperate rather than 'southern.' Beyond this, it will be
+noted that in general the cave-fauna is more familiar in aspect, the
+Reindeer having survived up to the present day, though not in the same
+area. Again, save in one locality, not a single animal out of those
+discussed in connection with the alluvial deposits appears here. The
+exception is the Krapina rock-shelter. The surviving animal is
+_Rhinoceros merckii_, described above as one of the later arrivals in the
+epochs represented by the alluvial deposits. Krapina does not provide the
+Reindeer, and in this respect is contrasted again with the remaining
+localities. Yet the presence of the Marmot at Krapina may be nearly as
+significant as that of the Reindeer would be.
+
+Another cave, viz. the Grotte des Enfants, may also need reconsideration.
+For instance, the _Rhinoceros merckii_ was found in the deepest strata of
+this cave: but I do not consider that adequate evidence is given of its
+contemporaneity with the two human skeletons here considered. But the
+Reindeer is found in the same cave, as indicated in the table.
+
+With the exception of Krapina therefore, the conditions are remarkably
+uniform. This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence from many caves not
+described in detail here because of the lack of human bones therein or
+the imperfection of such as were found. Such caves have yielded abundant
+evidence in regard to the 'associated fauna.' A few of the more important
+results of the investigation of the mammals may be given. Thus the
+distribution of the Reindeer is so constant that except in regard to its
+abundance or rarity when compared with the remains of the horse in the
+same cave, it is of little or no use as a discriminating agency. The
+Mammoth (_E. primigenius_) was contemporaneous with the Reindeer, but was
+plentiful while the Reindeer was still rare. A similar remark applies to
+the Hairy Rhinoceros (_R. tichorhinus_), and also to the Cave-Bear. The
+Cervidae (other than the Reindeer), the Equidae, the Suidae (Swine) and
+the smaller Rodentia (especially Voles) are under investigation, but the
+results are not applicable to the finer distinctions envisaged here.
+
+To sum up the outcome of this criticism; it appears that of the
+cave-finds, Krapina stands out in contrast with the remainder, in the
+sense that its fauna is more ancient, and is indicative of a southern
+rather than a temperate environment. The latitude of Krapina has been
+invoked by way of explaining this difference, upon the supposition that
+the _Rhinoceros merckii_ survived longer in the south. Yet Krapina does
+not differ in respect of latitude from the caves of Le Moustier and La
+Chapelle, while it is rather to the north of the Mentone caves. Lastly,
+some weight must be attached to the alleged discovery at Pont Newydd in
+Wales, of Mousterian implements with remains of _R. merckii_.
+
+The fauna of the other caves suggests temperate, if not sub-arctic
+conditions of climate. In all cases, the cave-finds are assignable to a
+period later in time than that in which the fluviatile deposits
+(previously discussed) were formed. The cave-men thus come within the
+later subdivisions of the Pleistocene period.
+
+(_c_) The fifth column of the table gives the types of stone implements
+found in association with the respective remains. As is well known, and
+as was stated in the introductory sentences of this book, stone artefacts
+constitute the second great class of evidence on the subject of human
+antiquity. As such they might appropriately have been accorded a
+separate chapter or even a volume. Here a brief sketch only of their
+significance in evidence will be attempted. The value of stone implements
+in deciding upon the age of deposits (whether in caves or elsewhere)
+depends upon the intimacy of the relation existing between various forms
+of implement and strata of different age. How close that intimacy really
+is, has been debated often and at great length. Opinions are still at
+variance in regard to details, but as to certain main points, no doubt
+remains. Yet the study is one in which even greater specialisation is
+needed than in respect of comparative osteology. The descriptions
+following these preliminary remarks are based upon as extensive an
+examination as possible, both of the literature, and of the materials.
+
+To discuss the validity of the claims made in favour of or against the
+recognition of certain individual types will be impossible, save in the
+very briefest form. The better-known varieties have received names
+corresponding to the localities where they were first discovered, or
+where by reason of their abundance they led to the recognition of their
+special value as a means of classification. These designations will be
+employed without further definition or explanation, save in a few
+instances.
+
+Commencing again with the fifth column of the table, the first point to
+notice is that no implements at all have been discovered in immediate
+association with the fossil remains at Mauer and Trinil (Java). Yet in
+the absence of evidence, it must not be concluded that the contemporary
+representatives of mankind were incapable of providing such testimony.
+Evidence will be adduced presently to show the incorrectness of such a
+conclusion.
+
+In the next place, the great majority of the cave-men are associated with
+implements of one and the same type, viz. the Mousterian, so called from
+the locality (Le Moustier) which has furnished so complete an example of
+ancient prehistoric man.
+
+Lastly, the Galley Hill skeleton maintains the distinctive position
+assigned to it, for as in the previous columns, it disagrees also here
+with the majority of the examples ranged near it.
+
+If enquiry be made as to the significance, _i.e._ the sequence in point
+of time and the general status of the various types of implements
+mentioned in the table, it will be found that all without exception are
+described as of Palaeolithic type. Indeed they furnish largely the
+justification for the application of that term (employed so often in
+Chapter II) to the various skeletons described there.
+
+To these Palaeolithic implements, others of the Neolithic types
+succeeded in Europe. [It is necessary to insist upon this succession as
+European, since palaeoliths are still in use among savage tribes, such as
+the aboriginal (Bush) natives of South Africa.] Confining attention to
+palaeoliths and their varieties, the discovery of a form alleged to fill
+the gap separating the most ancient Neolithic from the least ancient
+Palaeolithic types may be mentioned. The implements were obtained from
+the cave known as Le Mas d'Azil in the south of France.
+
+In Germany, the researches of Professor Schmidt[28] in the caverns of
+Wuerttemburg have revealed a series of strata distinguished not only in
+position and sequence but also by the successive types of stone
+implements related to the several horizons. The sequence may be shewn
+most concisely if the deposits are compared in a tabular form as follows
+(Table I).
+
+These caves give the information necessary for a correct appreciation of
+the position of all the cave-implements in Table A. Reverting to the
+latter, and having regard to the cave-men, both subdivisions of Division
+II (cf. Table A) appear, but no example or representative of the
+earliest form (designated by Division I). The fauna is entirely
+Pleistocene, if we except such a trifling claim to Pliocene antiquity as
+may be based upon the presence of _Rhinoceros merckii_ at Krapina.
+
+The results of this enquiry shew therefore that genuine Mousterian
+implements are of Pleistocene age, that they were fabricated by human
+beings of a comparatively low type, who lived in caves and were by
+occupation hunters of deer and other large ungulate animals. So much has
+long been known, but the extraordinary distinctness of the evidence of
+superposition shewn in Professor Schmidt's work at Sirgenstein, furnishes
+the final proof of results arrived at in earlier days by the slow
+comparison of several sites representing single epochs. That work also
+helps to re-establish the Aurignacian horizon and period as distinctive.
+
+                                TABLE I.
+
+  +-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
+  |                   |  Type of Implement    |                         |
+  |       Levels      +-----------+-----------+          Fauna          |
+  |                   |   Ofnet   |Sirgenstein|                         |
+  +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+
+  |A. Most superficial|    --     |  Bronze   |                         |
+  |                   |           |           |                         |
+  |                   | Neolithic |    --     |                         |
+  |                   |           |           |                         |
+  |B. 1. Intermediate |  Azilian  |    --     |                         |
+  |                   |                       |                         |
+  |                   |      Palaeolithic     |                         |
+  |                   |                       |                         |
+  |   2. Deepest      |Magdalenian|Magdalenian|} Myodes torquatus (the  |
+  |      stratum at   |           |           |} Banded Lemming)        |
+  |      Ofnet        |           |           |}                        |
+  |                   |           |           |}                        |
+  |   3.              |    --     | Solutrean |} Fauna of a northern    |
+  |                   |           |           |}  character throughout: |
+  |                   |           |           |}  with Reindeer,        |
+  |   4.              |    --     |Aurignacian|}  Mammoth, Rhinoceros   |
+  |                   |           |           |}  tichorhinus and Horse |
+  |                   |           |           |}                        |
+  |   5. Deepest      |    --     |Mousterian |} Myodes obensis (a      |
+  |      stratum at   |           |           |  Siberian Lemming)      |
+  |      Sirgenstein  |           |           |                         |
+  +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+
+
+When attention is turned from the cave-finds to those in alluvial
+deposits, names more numerous but less familiar meet the view. As the
+animals have been shewn to differ, so the types of implements provide a
+marked contrast. Yet a transition is suggested by the claim made on
+behalf of Mousterian implements for the Taubach deposits, a claim which
+(it will be remembered) is absolutely rejected by some experts of high
+authority.
+
+In pursuing the sequence of implements from the Mousterian back to still
+earlier types, cave-hunting will as a rule provide one step only, though
+this is of the greatest value. In a few caves, implements of the type
+made famous by discoveries in alluvial gravels at S. Acheul in France
+(and designated the Acheulean type) have been found in the deeper levels.
+Such a cave is that of La Ferrassie (cf. p. 74); another is that of La
+Chapelle, in which (it will be remembered) the Acheulean implements
+underlay the human interment. Kent's Hole in Devonshire is even more
+remarkable. For the lowest strata in this cavern yielded implements of
+the earliest Chellean form, though this important fact is not commonly
+recognised. Such caves are of the greatest interest, for they provide
+direct evidence of the succession of types, within certain limits. But
+the indefatigable labours of M. Commont[29] of Amiens have finally welded
+the two series, viz. the cave-implements and the river-drift implements,
+into continuity, by demonstrating in the alluvial deposits of the river
+Somme, a succession of types, from the Mousterian backwards to much more
+primitive forms. These newly-published results have been appropriately
+supplemented by discoveries in the alluvial strata of the Danube.
+Combining these results from the river deposits, and for the sake of
+comparison, adding those from the caves at Ofnet and Sirgenstein, a
+tabulated statement (Table II) has been drawn up.
+
+The two examples of human skeletons from alluvial deposits given in Table
+A are thus assigned to epochs distinguished by forms of implement more
+primitive than those found usually in caves; and moreover the more
+primitive implements are actually shewn to occur in deeper (_i.e._ more
+ancient) horizons where superposition has been observed. The greater
+antiquity of the two river-drift men (as contrasted with the cave-men)
+has been indicated already by the associated animals, and this evidence
+is now confirmed by the characters of the implements.
+
+It may be remarked again that the details of stratigraphical succession
+have but recently received complete demonstration, mainly through the
+researches of Messrs Commont, Obermaier[30], and Bayer[30]. The
+importance of such results is extraordinarily far-reaching, since a means
+is provided hereby of correlating archaeological with geological evidence
+to an extent previously unattained.
+
+(_d_) It will be noted that this advance has taken little or no account
+of actual human remains. For in the nature of things, implements will be
+preserved in river deposits, where skeletons would quickly disintegrate
+and vanish.
+
+                                TABLE II.
+
+             +---------------------------------------------+
+             |              A. Caves[1]                    |
+             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
+             |     Type of     |   Ofnet[2]  | Sirgenstein |
+             |    Implement    |             |     [2]     |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
+             |               1.|             |   Bronze    |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             | Neolithic     2.|  Neolithic  |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             | Intermediate  3.|   Azilian   |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             | Palaeolithic  4.| Magdalenian | Magdalenian |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |               5.|     --      |  Solutrean  |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |               6.|     --      | Aurignacian |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |               7.|     --      |  Mousterian |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |               8.|     --      |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |               9.|     --      |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             |              10.|     --      |     --      |
+             |                 |             |             |
+             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
+
+               +-----------------------------------------+
+               |           B. Alluvial deposits          |
+               +-------------+-------------+-------------+
+               |  S. Acheul  | Willendorf  | S. Acheul   |
+               |  (Tellier)  |  (Austria)  | (Tellier,   |
+               |     [3]     |     [4]     |  etc.)[3]   |
+               +-------------+-------------+-------------+
+               |     --      |      --     |     --      |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |      --     |     --      |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |      --     |     --      |
+               |             |             |             |
+               | Magdalenian |      --     |     --      |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |  Solutrean  |     --      |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      | Aurignacian |     --      |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |      --     | Mousterian  |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |      --     |  Acheulean  |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |      --     |   Chellean  |
+               |             |             |             |
+               |     --      |      --     | "Industrie  |
+               |             |             | grossiere"  |
+               +-------------+-------------+-------------+
+
+  [1] For the occurrence of Acheulean and Chellean implements in caves,
+      v. page 98.
+
+  [2] Schmidt, 1909.
+
+  [3] Commont, 1908.
+
+  [4] Obermaier and Bayer, 1909.
+
+The next subject of enquiry is therefore that of the antiquity of Man as
+indicated by the occurrence of his artefacts.
+
+The succession of Palaeolithic implements has just been given and
+discussed, as far back as the period marked by the Chellean implements of
+the lower river gravels (not necessarily the lower terrace) of S. Acheul.
+For up to this point the testimony of human remains can be called in
+evidence. And as regards the associated animals, the Chellean implements
+(Taubach) have been shewn to accompany a group of animals suggestive of
+the Pliocene fauna which they followed.
+
+But implements of the type of Chelles have been found with a more
+definitely 'Pliocene' form of elephant than those already mentioned. At
+S. Prest and at Tilloux in France, Chellean implements are associated
+with _Elephas meridionalis_, a species destined to become extinct in very
+early Pleistocene times. Near the Jalon river in Aragon, similar
+implements accompany remains of an elephant described as a variety of _E.
+antiquus_ distinctly approaching _E. meridionalis_.
+
+In pursuing the evidence of human antiquity furnished by implements, a
+start may be made from the data corresponding to the Galley Hill skeleton
+in column 5 of Table A. Two divergent views are expressed here, since the
+alternatives "Acheulean" or "Strepyan" are offered in the table. In the
+former instance (Acheulean) a recent writer (Mr Hinton, 1910) insists on
+the Pliocene affinities of the high-level terrace mammals. But as a
+paradox, he states that the high-level terrace deposits provide
+implements of the Acheulean type, whereas the Chellean type would be
+expected, since on the Continent implements associated with a fauna of
+Pliocene aspect, are of Chellean type. To follow Mr Hinton in his able
+discussion of this paradox is tempting, but not permissible here; it must
+suffice to state that the difficulty is reduced if Professor Rutot's[31]
+view be accepted. For the Strepyan form of implement (which M. Rutot
+recognises in this horizon) is older than the others mentioned and
+resembles the Chellean type. To appreciate this, the sequence which
+Professor Rutot claims to have established is here appended.
+
+                        A. _Pleistocene Period._
+
+                 (All Palaeolithic types except No. 1.)
+
+   1. Azilian     }
+                  }
+   2. Magdalenian }
+                  }
+   3. Solutrean   } Types found in caves as well as in alluvial deposits.
+                  }
+   4. Aurignacian }
+                  }
+   5. Mousterian  }
+
+   6. Acheulean. Fauna of S.-E. Britain has a Pliocene aspect. High-level
+      terrace of Thames valley (Hinton, 1910).
+
+   7. Chellean. Fauna of Continent has Pliocene affinities (Hinton, 1910).
+
+   8. Strepyan. Galley Hill Skeleton. High-level terrace, Thames basin
+      (Rutot, 1911).
+
+   9. Mesvinian. Implements on surface of chalk-plateau, Ightham, Kent
+      (Rutot, 1900).
+
+  10. Mafflian. Galley Hill skeleton (Rutot, 1903). Mauer jaw (Rutot,
+      1911).
+
+  11. Reutelian. High-level terrace of Thames basin, Rutot, 1900. The
+      Reutelian implement is "eolithic," and is found unchanged in stages
+      assigned to the Pliocene, Miocene and Oligocene periods
+      (Rutot, 1911).
+
+The duration of the Pleistocene period is estimated at about 139,000
+years (Rutot, 1904).
+
+                          B. _Pliocene Period._
+
+  12. Kentian (Reutelian).
+
+                          C. _Miocene Period._
+
+  13. Cantalian (Reutelian).
+
+                         D. _Oligocene Period._
+
+  14. Fagnian (Reutelian).
+
+                           E. _Eocene Period._
+
+  15. [Eoliths of Duan and other French sites: not definitely recognised
+      in 1911 by Rutot.]
+
+Several results of vast importance would follow, should the tabulated
+suggestions be accepted unreservedly in their entirety.
+
+An inference of immediate interest is to the effect that if Professor
+Rutot's view be adopted, the high-level terrace of the Thames valley is
+not contrasted so strongly with continental deposits containing the same
+mammals, as Mr Hinton suggests. For Professor Rutot's Strepyan period is
+earlier than the Chellean. It may be questioned whether Mr Hinton is
+right in assigning only Acheulean implements to the high-terrace gravels.
+Indeed Mr E. T. Newton (1895) expressly records the occurrence at Galley
+Hill, of implements more primitive than those of Acheulean form, and
+'similar to those found by Mr B. Harrison on the high plateau near
+Ightham,'--_i.e._ the Mesvinian type of Professor Rutot. A final decision
+is perhaps unattainable at present. But on the whole, the balance of
+evidence seems to go against Mr Hinton; though _per contra_ it will not
+escape notice that since 1903, Professor Rutot has 'reduced' the Galley
+Hill skeleton from the Mafflian to the Strepyan stage, and it is
+therefore possible that further reduction may follow.
+
+Leaving these problems of the Galley Hill implements and the Strepyan
+period, the Mesvinian and Mafflian types are described by Professor
+Rutot as representatives of yet older and more primitive stages in the
+evolution of these objects. As remarked above (Chapter III), the Mauer
+jaw is referred by Professor Rutot to the Mafflian (implement) period of
+the early Pleistocene age, though the grounds for so definite a statement
+are uncertain.
+
+More primitive, and less shapely therefore, than the Mafflian implements,
+are the forms designated 'Reutelian.' They are referred to the dawn of
+the Quaternary or Pleistocene period. But with these the initial stage of
+evolution seems to be reached. Such 'eoliths,' as they have been termed,
+are only to be distinguished by experts, and even these are by no means
+agreed in regarding them as products of human industry. If judgment on
+this vital point be suspended for the moment, it will be seen that
+Professor Rutot's scheme carries this evidence of human existence far
+back into the antiquity denoted by the lapse of the Pliocene and Miocene
+periods of geological chronology. But let it be remarked that when the
+names Kentian, Cantalian and Fagnian are employed, no claim is made or
+implied that three distinctive types of implement are distinguished, for
+in respect of form they are all Reutelian.
+
+Herein the work of M. Commont must be contrasted with that of Professor
+Rutot. For the gist of M. Commont's researches lies in the demonstration
+of a succession of types from the more perfect to the less finished,
+arranged in correspondence with the superimposed strata of a single
+locality. A vertical succession of implements accompanies a similar
+sequence of strata.
+
+Professor Rutot examines the Pliocene deposits in England, Miocene in
+France and Oligocene in Belgium, and finds the same Reutelian type in
+all. The names Kentian, Cantalian, and Fagnian should therefore be
+abandoned, for they are only synonyms for Pliocene-Reutelian, etc.
+
+It is hard to gain an idea of the enormous duration of human existence
+thus suggested. But a diagram (Fig. 24) constructed by Professor
+Penck[32] is appended with a view to the graphic illustration of this
+subject. The years that have elapsed since the commencement of the
+Oligocene period must be numbered by millions. The human type would be
+shewn thus not merely to have survived the Hipparion, Mastodon and
+Deinotherium but to have witnessed their evolution and the parental forms
+whence they arose.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene,
+                 Pliocene and Pleistocene time: (From Penck.)
+
+                  1. Line of oscillation of level of lowest snow-line.
+                     (Central Europe.)
+
+                  2. Localities where 'eolithic implements' occur.
+
+                  3. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of the
+                     modern Horse. The claim of Anchitherium to occupy
+                     the position it holds here, is strongly criticised
+                     by Deperet.
+
+                  4. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of
+                     modern Elephants.
+
+The chart is to be read from right to left. The gradual sinking of the
+snow-line is to be noticed, and the oscillations of the same line during
+the Glacial Period are also shewn (cf. Fig. 25).]
+
+Such is the principal outcome of the opinions embodied in the tabulation
+of Professor Rutot. That observer is not isolated in his views, though
+doubtless their most energetic advocate at the present day. We must
+admire the industry which has conferred upon this subject the support of
+evidence neither scanty in amount, nor negligible in weight. But the
+court is still sitting, no final verdict being yet within sight.
+
+While the so-called Eocene eoliths of Duan (Eure-et-Loire) fail to
+receive acceptance (Laville[33], 1906), even at Professor Rutot's hands
+(1911), it is otherwise with those ascribed to the Oligocene period. Mr
+Moir[34] of Ipswich has lately recognised prepalaeoliths beneath the
+Suffolk Crag (Newbourn) at Ipswich resting 011 the underlying London
+Clay.
+
+Some objections to the recognition of the so-called 'eoliths' as
+artefacts may now be considered.
+
+(1) The case of the opponents rests mainly on a fourfold basis of
+argument. Thus the nature of the splintering or chipping is called in
+question. Some writers appeal to weathering, others to movements in the
+deposits ('earth-creep,' and 'foundering of drifts,' Warren[35] 1905. and
+Breuil, 1910), and others again to the concussions experienced by flints
+in a torrential rush of water. The last explanation is supported by
+observations on the forms of flints removed from certain rotary
+machines used in cement-factories (Boule[36], 1905).
+
+(2) A second line of opposition impugns the association of the flints
+with the strata wherein they were found, or the geological age of those
+strata may be called in question as having been assigned to too early a
+period.
+
+(3) Then (in the third place) comes the objection that the eoliths carry
+Man's existence too far back; having regard to the general development of
+the larger mammals, Pliocene Man might be accepted, but 'Oligocene' Man
+is considered incredible. Moreover the period of time which has elapsed
+since the Oligocene period must be of enormous length.
+
+(4) In the last place will be mentioned criticism of the distribution of
+the eolithic type (Obermaier[37], 1908).
+
+(1) Having regard to the first of these arguments, the balance of
+evidence appears so even and level that it is hardly possible to enter
+judgment on this alone. But experiments recently carried out by Mr Moir,
+and in Belgium by Munck and Ghilain (1907; cf. Grist[38], 1910) should
+do much to settle this point.
+
+Moreover the 'wash-tub' observations in cement-factories (Boule, 1905)
+prove too much, for it is alleged that among the flint-refuse, fragments
+resembling Magdalenian or even Neolithic implements were found. Yet such
+forms are not recorded in association with the comparatively shapeless
+eoliths. Further experiments are desirable, but so far they support
+Professor Rutot and his school rather than their opponents.
+
+(2) The position of the eoliths and the accuracy with which their
+immediate surroundings are determined may be impugned in some instances,
+but this does not apply to Mr Moir's finds at Ipswich, nor to the
+Pliocene eoliths found by Mr Grist[38] at Dewlish (1910).
+
+(3) While the general evidence of palaeontology may be admitted as
+adverse to the existence of so highly-evolved a mammal as Man in the
+earlier Tertiary epochs, yet the objection is of the negative order and
+for this reason it must be discounted to some extent. If the lapse of
+time be objected to, Dr Sturge[39] (1909) is ready to adduce evidence of
+glacial action upon even Neolithic flints, and to propose a base-line for
+the commencement of the Neolithic phase no less than 300,000 years ago.
+
+(4) The distribution of the implements finds a weak spot in the defences
+of the eolithic partisans. It is alleged that eoliths are almost always
+flints: and that they occur with and among other flints, and but rarely
+elsewhere. Palaeoliths (of flint) also occur among other flints, but they
+are not thus limited in their association. This distinction is admitted
+by some at least of the supporters of the 'artefact' nature of the
+eoliths, and the admission certainly weakens their case.
+
+The question is thus far from the point of settlement, and it may well
+continue to induce research and discussion for years to come. That a
+final settlement for the very earliest stages is practically unattainable
+will be conceded, when the earliest conditions are recalled in
+imagination. For when a human being first employed stones as implements,
+natural forms with sharp points or edges would be probably selected. The
+first early attempts to improvise these or to restore a blunted point or
+edge would be so erratic as to be indistinguishable (in the result) from
+the effects of fortuitous collisions. While such considerations are
+legitimately applicable to human artefacts of Oligocene or Miocene
+antiquity, they might well appear to be less effective when directed to
+the Pleistocene representatives where signs of progress might be
+expected. Yet Professor Rutot (1911) does not distinguish even the
+Pleistocene Reutelian from the Oligocene (eolithic) forms. If, on such
+evidence as this, early Pleistocene Man be recognised, Oligocene Man
+must needs be accepted likewise. Professor Rutot's mode of escape from
+this difficult position is interesting and instructive, if not
+convincing. It is effected by way of the assumption that in regard to his
+handiwork, Man (some say a tool-making precursor of Man) was in a state
+of stagnation throughout the ages which witnessed the rise and fall of
+whole genera of other mammals. That this proposition is untrue, can never
+be demonstrated. On the other hand, the proposition may be true, and
+therefore the unprejudiced will maintain an open mind, pending the advent
+of more conclusive evidence than has been adduced hitherto.
+
+
+
+
+                                CHAPTER V
+
+                 HUMAN FOSSILS AND GEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY
+
+
+In the preceding Chapter, the remains of Palaeolithic Man were studied in
+relation to the associated animals (especially mammals), and again (so
+far as possible) in connection with the accompanying implements. In the
+comparison of the different types of implement, evidence was adduced to
+shew that certain forms of these are distinctive of corresponding
+geological horizons. Of the three series, (1) human remains, (2)
+mammalian remains, (3) stone implements, the first two, (1) and (2), have
+been compared as well as (1) and (3). A comparison between (2) and (3)
+has now to be instituted. And this is of interest, for mammalian remains
+have been found in the presence of implements where no human bones could
+be discovered. Moreover the expectation is well founded, whereby the
+mammalian fauna will prove to supply information unobtainable from either
+human skeletons or implements by themselves. That information will bear
+upon the climatic conditions of the different phases which mark the
+geological history of Man. And in this way, a more perfect correlation of
+the past history of Man with the later geological history of the earth
+may be fairly anticipated.
+
+In Chapter IV, use was frequently made of the expression 'southern,'
+'temperate' or 'sub-arctic,' in connection with the various groups of
+mammals mentioned in Table A. And while the geological period is limited,
+during which these investigations are profitably applicable, yet the
+matter is one of no small importance. For the very fact that the fauna
+can be described in one case as 'southern' in character, in another as
+'temperate,' suggests some variation of climate. And the relation of the
+history of Man to the great variation of climate implied in the
+expression 'Glacial Period,' may be reasonably expected to receive some
+elucidation from this branch of study. It will be noticed that Man
+himself is at present comparatively independent of climate, and even in
+earlier times he was probably less affected than some other animals. But
+while the importance of these studies must be recognised, it is also very
+necessary to notice that as elsewhere so here the difficulties are great,
+and pitfalls numerous.
+
+It is no part of the present work to attempt a history of the stages
+through which opinion passed in developing the conception embodied in the
+phrase 'Ice-Age.' Long before that idea had been formulated, the presence
+of animal remains both in cave and alluvial deposits was a matter of
+common knowledge. The late Professor Phillips is believed to have been
+the first to make definite use of the terms 'pre-glacial' and
+'post-glacial' in reference to the later geological formations (1855).
+And to the pre-glacial era that geologist referred most of the ossiferous
+caves and fissures.
+
+But in 1860, this, the accepted view, was overthrown by the late Dr
+Falconer[40] at least so far as the caves (with the exception of the
+Victoria Cave) then explored in Britain were concerned. In the same year,
+the post-glacial position and antiquity of various brick-earths and
+gravels of the Thames valley were considered to have been definitely
+established by the late Professor Prestwich. It is very important to note
+in this connection, that the palaeontological evidence of those
+brick-earths was nevertheless held to indicate pre-glacial antiquity and
+thus to contradict the evidence of stratigraphy. The method employed in
+the latter mode of enquiry consisted in ascertaining the relation of the
+boulder-clay to certain deposits distinguished by their fauna, the
+Mollusca being especially employed in the identifications. Boulder-clay
+seems, in this country, to have been taken as the premier indication of
+the glacial period; it was supposed to be a submarine deposit formed
+during a submergence of large parts of these islands in the course of
+that period. That the late Sir Charles Lyell dwelt upon the problems of
+the boulder clay should also be recalled, for he expressly recounts how
+constantly it proved a barrier marking the extreme limit to which the
+works of Man could be traced. Implements or even bones had been found in
+the drift and above the boulder-clay, but not below.
+
+For a while no attempt seems to have been made to subdivide the
+boulder-clay or to question its exact identity over all the area occupied
+by it. Yet such a subdivision might have resulted in explaining the
+contradiction or paradox (curiously analogous to that propounded by Mr
+Hinton in 1910, cf. p. 102 supra) just mentioned as existing between the
+age to be assigned to the Thames river-drift upon (_a_) stratigraphical
+evidence ('post-glacial'), and (_b_) palaeontological evidence
+('pre-glacial').
+
+That there might be several deposits of the boulder-clay with intervening
+strata, does not appear to have been suggested. The Glacial period was
+long regarded as one and indivisible. By some able geologists that view
+is still held.
+
+Yet even in those comparatively early days, some succession of
+glaciations was suspected. In 1845, Ramsay recognised three phases of
+ice-action in North Wales. In 1855, Morlot took in hand the work of
+charting the extent of several Swiss glaciations. At last the possibility
+of a subdivision of the boulder-clay was realised, and it was
+demonstrated by the researches of Sir A. Geikie[41] (1863). But such
+division of the boulder-clay leads directly to an inference of successive
+periods of deposition--and when the earlier opinion (whereby the
+boulder-clay was regarded as a submarine deposit) was partly abandoned in
+favour of its origin as a 'ground-moraine,' the plurality of glaciations
+was still more strongly supported. The work of Julien (Auvergne, 1869)
+and Professor James Geikie (1873) carries the story on to the year 1878
+which is marked by a very memorable contribution from Professor
+Skertchley[42], by whom account was taken of the stratigraphical position
+of stone implements. The names of these pioneers (and that of Croll
+should be added to the list) may be fittingly recalled now that the names
+of later continental observers figure so largely. But the work of
+Professors Penck, Brueckner, Boule and Obermaier, admirable as it is, may
+be regarded justly as an extension or amplification of pre-existing
+research.
+
+A multiplicity of glaciations demonstrated whether by successive
+'end-moraines,' or by a series of boulder-clays or 'tills,' implies
+intervening 'inter-glacial' epochs. To the earlier-recognised pre-glacial
+and post-glacial periods, one or more inter-glacial phases must therefore
+be added. Consequently the absence of evidence (indicative of Man's
+existence) from the boulder-clay need not exclude his presence in the
+inter-glacial deposits; and in fact the appearance of strongly-supported
+evidence that some implements of only Neolithic antiquity occur in
+inter-glacial surroundings, has been mentioned already (Chapter IV,
+Sturge, 1909). And thus, whether the series be one of grand oscillations
+constituting as many periods, or on the other hand a sequence of
+variations too slight to deserve distinctive terms, the fact of
+alternations prolonged over a considerable time seems to be established.
+Attempts to correlate various phases in the history of the animal and
+particularly of the human inhabitants of the affected area with these
+changes, still remained to be made.
+
+Of such attempts, an early one, if not absolutely the earliest, stands to
+the credit of Dr Skertchley (1878). But in 1888 a much more definite
+advance was made by Professor Boule[43]. Still later came the suggestions
+of Professors Mortillet, Hoernes[44] (1903), Penck, Obermaier[45] (1909)
+and Tornqvist. And the employment of implements in evidence was found
+practicable by them. Ample compensation is thus provided for the lack of
+human bones, a deficiency almost as deplorable in 1911 as it was when
+Lyell called attention to it in 1863.
+
+But the literature on this subject is so controversial and has attained
+such proportions, that the attempt to present current views will be
+limited to the discussion of the appended table (B). Here an endeavour
+has been made to submit the views expressed by the most competent
+observers of the day. The first point to which attention is directed
+consists in the manner in which the several glacial periods are
+distributed over the geological time-table. Boule claims one glaciation
+of Pliocene antiquity, followed by two Pleistocene glaciations. The
+remaining authors agree in ascribing all the glaciations to the
+Pleistocene period. Herein they follow the lead of Professor Penck, whose
+diagram of the oscillations in level of the snow-line in Central Europe
+is reproduced in Fig. 25. In the next place, the fact that Professor
+Penck's scheme was primarily intended to serve for the Swiss Alps must
+not be overlooked. That this system should leave traces everywhere else
+in Europe is not necessarily implied in accepting the scheme just
+mentioned.
+
+                                TABLE B.
+
+                _List of types of associated implements._
+
+  +------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
+  |                        |    1908     |     1908    |     1903     |
+  |    Penck's scheme[1]   +-------------+-------------+--------------+
+  |                        |  Boule[2]   |    Penck    |   Hoernes    |
+  +------------------------+----  -------+-------------+--------------+
+  | Postglacial =4= = with | Magdalenian | Magdalenian |      --      |
+  | Achen and other        | Solutrean(4)|             |              |
+  | oscillations (Penck)   |             |             |              |
+  |                        |=============++            |              |
+  | =Glacial IV= 2nd       | Mousterian  || Solutrean  |      --      |
+  | Pleistocene(2)         |             ||    [4]     |              |
+  | Glaciation of Boule.   |             ++============++             |
+  | "Wuermian" of Penck     |             |             ||             |
+  |                        |             |             ||             |
+  | _Interglacial_ =3=     |  Acheulean  | Mousterian  || Magdalenian |
+  | = Riss-Wuerm interval   | (Obermaier) | (warm phase)||             |
+  | (Penck)                |  Chellean   |             ||             |
+  |                        |             |             ||             |
+  | =Glacial III= 1st      |  Chellean   | Mousterian  ||     --      |
+  | Pleistocene Glaciation |             | (cold phase)||             |
+  | of Boule. "Rissian"    |             |             ||             |
+  | of Penck               |             |             ||             |
+  |                        |             |             ||             |
+  | _Interglacial_ =2=     |     ?       |  Acheulean  || Solutrean   |
+  | = Mindel-Riss interval |             |  Chellean   ++=============|
+  | (Penck)                |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  | =Glacial II=           |     ?       |      ?      |      --      |
+  | "Mindelian" of Penck   |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  | _Interglacial_ =1=     |     ?       |      ?      | Mousterian   |
+  | = Guenz-Mindel interval |             |             |  Chellean    |
+  | (Penck)                |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  | =Glacial I= "Guenzian"  |     ?       |      ?      |      --      |
+  | of Penck               |             |             |              |
+  |                        |             |             |              |
+  +------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
+
+
+  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
+  |                        |    1908      |    1908    |      1878       |
+  |    Penck's scheme[1]   +--------------+------------+-----------------+
+  |                        |    Rutot     |   Sollas   |  Skertchley[3]  |
+  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
+  | Postglacial =4= = with |  Neolithic   |     ?      |    Neolithic    |
+  | Achen and other        |    period    |            |      period     |
+  | oscillations (Penck)   |              |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial IV= 2nd       |    Lower     |     ?      | Hessle          |
+  | Pleistocene(2)         | Magdalenian  |            | Boulder-clay    |
+  | Glaciation of Boule.   |  Solutrean   |            |                 |
+  | "Wuermian" of Penck     | Aurignacian  |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | _Interglacial_ =3=     |  Mousterian  | Acheulean  |   Palaeoliths   |
+  | = Riss-Wuerm interval   |    Upper     |            |     of the      |
+  | (Penck)                |  Acheulean   |            | "modern-valley" |
+  |                        |              |            |      type.      |
+  |                        |              |            | Valley-gravels  |
+  |                        |              |            |   of present    |
+  |                        |              |            | Ouse, Cam, etc. |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial III= 1st      |    Lower     | [Chalky    | Purple          |
+  | Pleistocene Glaciation |  Acheulean   |Boulder-clay| Boulder-clay    |
+  | of Boule. "Rissian"    |   Chellean   |  of Hoxne] |                 |
+  | of Penck               |              |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | _Interglacial_ =2=     |  Strepyan    |     ?      | Palaeoliths of  |
+  | = Mindel-Riss interval |  Mesvinian   |            |"ancient-valley" |
+  | (Penck)                |  Mafflean    |            |      type.      |
+  |                        |              |            | ?Flood-gravels. |
+  |                        |              |            | Valleys do not  |
+  |                        |              |            |  correspond to  |
+  |                        |              |            |  modern river   |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial II=           |      --      |     ?      |     Chalky      |
+  | "Mindelian" of Penck   |              |            |   Boulder-clay  |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | _Interglacial_ =1=     |      --      |     ?      |  Brandon beds   |
+  | = Guenz-Mindel interval |              |            | with implements |
+  | (Penck)                |              |            |                 |
+  |                        |              |            |                 |
+  | =Glacial I= "Guenzian"  |      --      |     ?      |   Cromer Till.  |
+  | of Penck               |              |            |    Later than   |
+  |                        |              |            |    Forest-Bed   |
+  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
+
+  [1] Penck postulates four glaciations, all "pleistocene."
+
+  [2] Boule recognises two pleistocene glaciations (seemingly Nos. III
+      and IV of Penck), and one pliocene glaciation. The latter is not
+      indicated in the Table.
+
+  [3] Skertchley's scheme is now ignored, if not abandoned, by the best
+      authorities. It has been introduced here on account of its
+      historical interest only. Its correlation with the other schemes is
+      speculative.
+
+  [4] The differences between the rival schemes of Boule, Penck and
+      Hoernes are best realised by comparing the position assigned to the
+      Solutrean industry by each in turn. The loess and its divisions are
+      not indicated in this Table.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 25. Chart of the oscillations of the snow-level in
+                 Central Europe during the Pleistocene period.
+                 (From Penck.)
+
+In the uppermost space. _N_ Neolithic Age. _Ma_ Magdalenian. _Sol_
+Solutrean. _Guenz_, _Mindel_, _Riss_, _Wuerm_, denote the several glacial
+phases.
+
+This chart is to be read from right to left; on the extreme right the
+snow-line is first shewn 300 m. above its present level. Then it falls to
+nearly 1200 m. below the present level, the fall corresponding to the
+Guenzian glaciation. After this it nearly attains its former level, but
+does not quite reach the line marked + 300. This chart represents the
+part marked Glacial Epoch in Fig. 24, with which it should be compared.]
+
+In attempting to adjust the scale of glacial periods to that provided by
+the succession of implement-forms, it is suggested that a commencement
+should be made by considering the period designated Mousterian. If the
+position of the Mousterian period can be correlated with a definite
+subdivision of the Ice Age, then other periods will fall into line
+almost mechanically.
+
+The first enquiry to make is that indicated in the introductory
+paragraphs of this Chapter, viz. what is the general nature of the fauna
+accompanying Mousterian implements? Investigation of the records shews
+that this is characteristically of a northern or a temperate, but not a
+southern type. For the combination commonly regarded as indicative of the
+southern type (viz. _Elephas antiquus_, _Rhinoceros merckii_, and
+_Hippopotamus major_) is very doubtfully demonstrable in this
+association, save in the very remarkable instance of the Grotte du
+Prince, Mentone, and Boule (1906) makes somewhat laboured efforts to
+explain this example, which is exceptional in his opinion. On the other
+hand, that combination does occur in well-recognised inter-glacial
+deposits, _e.g._ the Swiss Lignites of Duernten, etc.
+
+The Mousterian implements commonly accompany much more definitely
+northern animal forms, so that a glacial rather than an inter-glacial age
+is indicated. But there are four such glacial phases from which to choose
+in Professor Penck's scheme, and in Professor Boule's scheme there are
+two (for the 'Pliocene glaciation,' appearing in the latter, is hardly in
+question).
+
+It will be seen (by reference to Table B) that Professor Boule assigns
+typical Mousterian implements to the most recent glacial period (Boule's
+No. III = Penck's No. IV = Wuerm), whereas Professor Penck places them in
+his penultimate grand period (Riss), carrying them down into the
+succeeding (Riss-Wuermian) inter-glacial period.
+
+Much diligence has been shewn in the various attempts to decide between
+these, the two great alternatives. (The view of Professor Hoernes, who
+assigns the Mousterian types to the first inter-glacial period of Penck,
+has received so little support as to render it negligible here.)
+
+Upon an examination of the controversial literature, the award here given
+is in favour of Professor Boule's scheme. The following reasons for this
+decision deserve mention.
+
+(1) Almost the only point of accord between the rival schools of thought,
+consists in the recognition by each side that the Magdalenian culture is
+post-glacial. But beyond this, the two factions seem to agree that the
+Mousterian culture is 'centred' on a glacial period but that it probably
+began somewhat earlier and lasted rather longer than that glacial period,
+whichever it might be.
+
+(2) The Chellean implements, which precede those of Mousterian type, are
+commonly associated with a fauna of southern affinities. This denotes an
+inter-glacial period. Therefore an inter-glacial period is indicated as
+having preceded the Mousterian age. But after the Mousterian age, none of
+the subsequent types are associated with a 'southern fauna.'
+
+Indications are thus given, to the following effect. The Mousterian
+position is such that a distinct inter-glacial period should precede it,
+and no such definite inter-glacial period should follow it. The last
+glacial period alone satisfies these requirements. The Mousterian
+position therefore coincides with the last great glaciation, whether we
+term this the fourth (with Professor Penck), or the third, with Professor
+Boule.
+
+(3) The Mousterian industry characterises a Palaeolithic settlement at
+Wildkirchli in Switzerland: the position of this is indicated with great
+accuracy to be just within the zone limited by the moraine of the last
+great glacial period (Penck's No. IV or Wuermian). The associated fauna is
+alleged to indicate that the age is not post-Wuermian, as might be
+supposed. This station at Wildkirchli probably represents the very
+earliest Mousterian culture, and its history dates from the last phase of
+the preceding (_i.e._ the Riss-Wuerm) inter-glacial period. But it belongs
+to Penck's glaciation No. IV, not to No. III.
+
+(4) Discoveries of implements of pre-Mousterian (Acheulean) form in the
+neighbourhood of the Chateau de Bohun (Ain, Rhone Basin, France, 1889),
+and Conliege (Jura, 1908) are accompanied by stratigraphical evidence
+whereby they are referred to an inter-glacial period later than the Riss
+glaciation (Penck's No. IV, Boule's No. III).
+
+The remaining arguments are directed against the position assigned by
+Professor Penck to the Mousterian implements.
+
+(5) Professor Penck admits that the epoch of the Mousterian type was
+glacial, and he recognises that it was preceded by a definitely
+inter-glacial epoch, with a southern fauna. But by selecting his No. III
+as the glacial period in question he is led to postulate a subsequent but
+warmer inter-glacial subdivision of the Mousterian period. The difficulty
+is to find convincing evidence of this post-Mousterian inter-glacial
+period, and of the corresponding 'southern' fauna. Professor Penck
+believes that the 'southern' animals returned. Professor Boule can find
+no post-Mousterian evidence of such a fauna. The constituent forms became
+extinct or migrated southwards, never to return. If this contention be
+true, and there is much in its favour, Professor Boule's view must be
+adopted.
+
+To shew how far-reaching some of the discussions are, attention may be
+directed to the fact that in this particular argument, much turns upon
+the nature of the implements found with the 'southern fauna' at Taubach
+(_v. ante_ Chapters II and III). If the implements are of Mousterian
+type, they support Professor Penck's view, for the 'warm Mousterian'
+sought by him will thus be found: but if the type is Chellean, the
+arguments of Professor Boule are notably reinforced.
+
+(6) The position assigned to one stage in the series of implements will
+affect all the rest. Professor Penck's view has been attacked with vigour
+and also with great effect, on account of the position he allots to the
+type of Solutre. The consensus of opinion regarding the position of
+Solutre (_i.e._ its typical implements) is very extensive and quite
+definite. In effect, the type of Solutre is assigned to the newer
+(_juengerer_) loess deposits. But these are also widely recognised as
+entirely post-glacial. Moreover in the last few years, the excavations in
+these particular loess-deposits in Lower Austria have not only confirmed
+that opinion, but have also revealed there the presence of Aurignacian
+implements, which closely follow those of Mousterian type.
+
+Professor Penck's scheme seems therefore to carry the Solutrean
+implements too far back. The attempt to overcome this objection by
+attributing an earlier (? inter-glacial) age to the special variety of
+loess in question, has not been attended with conspicuous success.
+
+Such are the main considerations upon which the decision has been taken
+in favour of Professor Boule's chronological scale. But when such an
+authority as Professor Sollas[46] (1908) is undecided, an amateur must
+not attempt to ignore the difficulties to be met. And while it is
+expedient to arrive at a final judgment, yet, in these controversies, the
+tendency is very marked to allow theory to run too far ahead of fact.
+Facts of the following kind are hard to reconcile with the schemes just
+described. (i) A Mousterian type of implement is recorded by Commont from
+the later (younger) loess of the third terrace at S. Acheul. According to
+the theory, the type of Solutre, and not of Le Moustier, should have
+occurred, (ii) In this country at least, an admixture of 'northern' and
+'southern' animals in a single deposit, has been demonstrated not
+infrequently, as in Italy also (Torre della Scalea, Cosenza). (iii)
+Professor Boyd Dawkins[47] (1910) insists upon the occurrence of
+Chellean, Acheulean, and Mousterian implements in one and the same
+British river deposit.
+
+Consequently the distinction of a northern from a southern fauna may yet
+prove to be destitute of sound foundations. Many years ago, Saporta
+pointed out instances of regions with a sub-tropical climate actually
+adjacent to glacial areas. This subject has fortunately now the advantage
+of the attention and criticism provided by such talented observers as Mr
+Hinton, Professor Laville, and Professor Schmidt.
+
+A trustworthy scheme of the relative chronology of culture (as denoted by
+the forms of implements), of mammalian variation and evolution (as shewn
+by the fauna), and of great climatic oscillations has not yet been
+obtained, but it has not been shewn to be unattainable. Meanwhile the
+schemes outlined in Table B mark a very great advance upon their
+predecessors.
+
+It may be of interest to note that Professor Penck believes that the
+several periods varied both in duration and in intensity. Their relative
+proportions are shewn in Professor Penck's diagram (Fig. 25). The smaller
+oscillations, following the close of the last great glaciation (Wuermian),
+should be noticed.
+
+
+
+
+                               CHAPTER VI
+
+           HUMAN EVOLUTION IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCOVERIES
+
+
+In this, the concluding Chapter, account is taken of the bearing of the
+foregoing discoveries and discussions, in relation with the light which
+they throw on the story of human development.
+
+A. Up to a certain point, the evidence is strikingly favourable to the
+hypothesis of human evolution. By this is meant the gradual development
+of the modern type of skeleton found in association with a large and
+active brain, capable of manifesting its activity in a great variety of
+ways. Most of the oldest human skeletons just described, differ from this
+type. Although a difference cannot be demonstrated in respect of cranial
+capacity, yet those older skeletons are usually distinguished by the
+heavier jaw and by stout curved limb-bones of such length as to indicate
+an almost dwarf stature. Still these indications, even though marking a
+more primitive status, point undeniably to human beings. Passing beyond
+these, a few fragments remain to suggest a still earlier stage in
+evolution. And with these at least we find ourselves definitely on the
+neutral ground between the territories of man and ape, though even here
+on the human side of that zone.
+
+In the same way, and again up to a certain point, the characters of human
+implements confirm the inferences drawn from the skeleton. For the older
+implements are re-gressively more and more crude, and an increasing
+amount of skill is needed to distinguish artefact from natural object.
+
+Again, the associated animals seem to become less familiar, and the
+percentage of extinct species increases the further we peer into the
+stages of the past.
+
+One of the most remarkable researches ever published upon these subjects
+is due to a group of scientists associated with Professor Berry of
+Melbourne University. In this place, only the most important of their
+memoirs (1910) can be called in evidence. In those particular
+publications, the initial objective was an attempt to measure the degree
+of resemblance between different types of skull. That endeavour may be
+roughly illustrated by reference to Fig. 26, in which tracings of various
+skull-outlines are adjusted to a conventional base-line. Should a
+vertical line be drawn from the mid-point of the base-line so as to cut
+the several contours, the vertical distances between the successive
+curves could be measured. The distance separating Pithecanthropus (_P.E._
+of the figure) from that of the corresponding curve for the Spy skull No.
+1 (Spy 1 of the figure) is clearly less than the distance between the
+curves for the second Spy skull (Spy 2) and the Papuan native.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 26. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a
+                 common dimension, viz. the line _Gl_--_Op_, representing
+                 a base-line of the brain-case. _Pe_, Pithecanthropus.
+                 _Papua_, a New Guinea native. _Hl_, _Sm_, _At_ are from
+                 skulls of monkeys. (After Dubois.)]
+
+But Mr Cross used a much more delicate method, and arrived at results
+embodied in the figure (27) reproduced from his memoir. A most graphic
+demonstration of those results is provided in this chart. Yet it must be
+added, that the Galley Hill skull, although shewn in an intermediate
+position, should almost certainly be nearer the upper limit. This
+criticism is based upon the conviction that many of the measurements upon
+which the results are dependent, assign to the Galley Hill skull a
+lowlier status than it originally possessed before it became distorted
+(posthumously). Again the Pithecanthropus is apparently nearer to the
+Anthropoid Apes than to Mankind of to-day. Let it be noticed however that
+this is not necessarily in contradiction with the opinion expressed above
+(p. 128 line 2). For Mr Cross' diagram is based upon cranial
+measurements, whereas the characters of the thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus
+tend to raise it in the general scale of appreciation. On the whole then,
+the evolutionary hypothesis seems to receive support from three
+independent sources of evidence.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 27. (From Cross.)]
+
+B. But if in one of the very earliest of those stages, a human form is
+discovered wherein the characters of the modern higher type are almost if
+not completely realised, the story of evolution thus set forth receives a
+tremendous blow. Such has been the effect of the discovery of the Galley
+Hill skeleton. Time after time its position has been called 'abnormal' or
+'isolated,' because it provides so many contrasts with the skeletons
+found in deposits regarded perhaps as leading towards but admittedly
+more recent than the Galley Hill gravel. And the juncture is long past at
+which its exact relation to that gravel could be so demonstrated as to
+satisfy the demands raised in a connection so vital to an important
+theory.
+
+Some authors of great experience have refused to recognise in evidence
+any claim made on behalf of the Galley Hill skeleton. Yet it is at least
+pardonable to consider some of the aspects of the situation created by
+its acceptance.
+
+(i) For instance, the argument is reasonable, which urges that if men of
+the Galley Hill type preceded in point of time the men of the lower
+Neanderthal type, the ancestry of the former (Galley Hill) must be sought
+at a far earlier period than that represented by the Galley Hill gravels.
+As to this, it may be noted that the extension of the 'human period,'
+suggested by eoliths for which Pliocene, Miocene, and even Oligocene
+antiquity is claimed, will provide more than this argument demands. The
+suggestion that a flint-chipping precursor of Man existed in Miocene time
+was made as long ago as 1878 by Gaudry[48].
+
+(ii) But if this be so, the significance of the Neanderthal type of
+skeleton is profoundly altered. It is no longer possible to claim only an
+'ancestral' position for that type in its relation to modern men. It may
+be regarded as a degenerate form. Should it be regarded as such, a
+probability exists that it ultimately became extinct, so that we should
+not expect to identify its descendants through many succeeding stages.
+That it did become extinct is a view to which the present writer
+inclines. Attempts have been made to associate with it the aborigines of
+Australia. But an examination of the evidence will lead (it is believed)
+to the inference that the appeal to the characters of those aborigines is
+of an illustrative nature only. Difficulties of a similar kind prevent
+its recognition either in the Eskimo, or in certain European types,
+although advocates of such claims are neither absent nor obscure.
+
+Again, it is well to enquire whether any other evidence of degeneration
+exists in association with the men of the Neanderthal type. The only
+other possible source is that provided by the implements. This is
+dangerous ground, but the opinion must be expressed that there is some
+reason to believe that Mousterian implements (which rather than any other
+mark the presence of the Neanderthal type of skeleton) do present forms
+breaking the sequence of implement-evolution. One has but to examine the
+material, to become impressed with the inferiority of workmanship
+displayed in some Mousterian implements to that of the earlier Acheulean
+types. In any case, a line of evidence is indicated here, which is not to
+be overlooked in such discussions.
+
+(iii) The Galley Hill skeleton has been described as comparatively
+isolated. Yet if it be accepted as a genuine representative of Man in the
+age of the gravel-deposits of the high-level terrace, it helps towards an
+understanding of the characters of some other examples. Thus a number of
+specimens (rejected by many authors as lacking adequate evidence of such
+vast antiquity as is here postulated) appear now, in this new light, as
+so many sign-posts pointing to a greater antiquity of that higher type of
+human skeleton than is usually recognised. Above all (to mention but a
+few examples), the cranium of Engis, with those from S. Acheul
+(discovered in 1861 by Mr H. Duckworth), and Tilbury, the fragment of a
+human skull from gravel at Bury St Edmunds, and a skeleton discovered
+near Ipswich beneath the boulder-clay in October 1911, seem to find their
+claims enhanced by the admission of those proffered on behalf of the
+Galley Hill specimen. And since Huxley wrote his memoir on the skulls
+from Engis and the Neanderthal, the significance of the former (Engis),
+fortified by the characters of the Galley Hill skeleton, has been greatly
+increased. Consequently it is not surprising to find confident appeals to
+the characters of a Galley Hill Race or Stock, near associates being the
+specimens mentioned in a preceding chapter as Bruenn (1891) and the
+Aurignac man next to be considered. The relations of these to the
+well-known Cro-Magnon type will be mentioned in the next paragraph.
+
+C. The appearance of the higher type of humanity in the period next
+following the Mousterian, viz. that distinguished by the Aurignacian type
+of implement, has now to be discussed. As already remarked, the man of
+Aurignac, as compared with him of the Neanderthal, has less protruding
+jaws, the lower jaw in particular being provided with the rudiment of a
+chin, while the limb bones are slender and altogether of the modern type.
+Upon such contrasts a remarkable theory has been based by Professor
+Klaatsch[49]. He made a comparison between the anthropoid apes on the one
+hand, and the two human types on the other (Fig. 28). As a result, he
+pointed out that the Orang-utan differs from the Gorilla much as the
+Aurignac does from the Neanderthal man. Assuming this statement to be
+correct, a hypothesis is elaborated to the effect that two lines of human
+descent are here in evidence. Of these one includes an ancestor common to
+the Orang-utan (an Asiatic anthropoid ape) and the Aurignac man; the
+other is supposed to contain an ancestor common to the Gorilla (of
+African habitat), and the Neanderthal man.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 28. Various thigh-bones arranged to shew the
+                 alleged similarity between _A_ Orang-utan and _B_
+                 Aurignac man, as also between _C_ Neanderthal and _D_
+                 Gorilla. _A_ and _B_, while resembling each other, are
+                 to be contrasted with _C_ and _D_. They are referred to
+                 as the A/O and N/G groups. (From Klaatsch.)]
+
+The further development of the story includes the following propositions.
+The more primitive and Gorilla-like Neanderthal type is introduced into
+Europe as an invader from Africa. Then (at a subsequent epoch probably)
+an Asiatic invasion followed. The new-comers owning descent from an
+Orang-utan-like forerunner are represented by the Aurignac skeleton and
+its congeners. In various respects they represented a higher type not
+only in conformation but in other directions. Having mingled with the
+Neanderthal tribes, whether by way of conquest or pacific penetration, a
+hybrid type resulted. Such was the origin of the Cro-magnon race.
+
+The hypothesis has been severely handled, by none more trenchantly than
+by Professor Keith[50]. A notable weakness is exposed in the attribution
+to the ancestors of the Orang-utan so close an association to any human
+ancestral forms, as Professor Klaatsch demands. To those familiar with
+the general anatomy of the Orang-utan (_i.e._ the anatomy of parts other
+than the skeleton) the difficulties are very apparent.
+
+Another effect of the hypothesis is that the so-called Neanderthaloid
+resemblances of the aborigines of Australia are very largely if not
+entirely subverted. This would not matter so much, but for the very
+decided stress laid by Professor Klaatsch upon the significance of those
+resemblances (cf. Klaatsch, 1909, p. 579, 'Die Neanderthalrasse besitzt
+zahlreiche australoide Anklaenge'). Again in earlier days, Professor
+Klaatsch supported a view whereby the Australian continent was claimed as
+the scene of initial stages in Man's evolution. Finally, up to the year
+1908, Professor Klaatsch was amongst the foremost of those who demand
+absolute exclusion of the Orang-utan and the Gorilla from any
+participation in the scheme of human ancestry.
+
+Having regard to such facts and to such oscillations of opinion, it is
+not surprising that this recent attempt to demonstrate a 'diphyletic' or
+'polyphyletic' mode of human descent should fail to convince most of
+those competent to pronounce upon its merits.
+
+Yet with all its defects, this attempt must not be ignored. Crude as the
+present demonstration may be, the possibility of its survival in a
+modified form should be taken into account. These reflections (but not
+necessarily the theory) may be supported in various ways. By a curious
+coincidence, Professor Keith, in rebutting the whole hypothesis, makes a
+statement not irrelevant in this connexion. For he opines that 'the
+characters which separate these two types of men (viz. the Aurignac and
+Neanderthal types) are exactly of the same character and of the same
+degree as separate a blood-horse from a shire-stallion.' Now some
+zoologists have paid special attention to such differences, when engaged
+in attempts to elucidate the ancestry of the modern types of horse. As a
+result of their studies, Professors Cossar Ewart and Osborn (and
+Professor Ridgeway's name should be added to theirs) agree that proofs
+have been obtained of the 'multiple nature of horse evolution' (Osborn).
+If we pass to other but allied animals, we may notice that coarser and
+finer types of Hipparion (_H. crassum_ and _H. gracile)_ have been
+contrasted with each other. A step further brings us to the Peat-hog
+problem (_Torf-Schwein Frage_ of German writers), and in the discussion
+of this the more leggy types of swine are contrasted with the more stocky
+forms. Owen (in 1846) relied on similar points for distinguishing the
+extinct species of Bovidae (Oxen) from one another. The contrast maybe
+extended even to the Proboscidea, for Dr Leith Adams believed that the
+surest test of the limb bones of _E. antiquus_ was their stoutness in
+comparison with those of _E. primigenius_. This is the very character
+relied upon by Professor Klaatsch in contrasting the corresponding parts
+of the human and ape skeletons concerned. But such analogies must not be
+pressed too far. They have been adduced only with a view to justifying
+the contention that the diphyletic scheme of Professor Klaatsch may yet
+be modified to such an extent as to receive support denied to it in its
+present form.
+
+D. In commenting upon the hypothesis expounded by Professor Klaatsch,
+mention was made of its bearing upon the status of the Cro-Magnon race.
+This is but part of a wide subject, viz. the attempt to trace in descent
+certain modern European types. It is necessary to mention the elaborate
+series of memoirs now proceeding from the pen of Dr Schliz[51], who
+postulates four stocks at least as the parent forms of the mass of
+European populations of to-day. Of these four, the Neanderthal type is
+regarded as the most ancient. But it is not believed to have been
+extirpated. On the contrary its impress in modern Europe is still
+recognisable, veiled though it may be in combination with any of the
+remaining three. The latter are designated the Cro-Magnon, Engis, and
+Truchere-Grenelle types, the last-mentioned being broad-headed as
+contrasted with all the rest. Of Professor Schliz' work it is hard to
+express a final opinion, save that while its comprehensive scope (without
+excessive regard to craniometry as such) is a feature of great value, yet
+it appears to lack the force of criticism based upon extensive
+anatomical, _i.e._ osteological study.
+
+E. The remarkable change in Professor Klaatsch's views on the part played
+by the anthropoid apes in human ancestral history has been already
+mentioned. In earlier days the Simiidae were literally set aside by
+Professor Klaatsch. But although the anthropoid monkeys have gained an
+adherent, they still find their claim to distinction most energetically
+combated by Professor Giuffrida-Ruggeri[52]. The latter declares that
+though he now (1911) repeats his views, it is but a repetition of such as
+he, following De Quatrefages, has long maintained. In this matter also,
+the last word will not be said for some time to come.
+
+F. The significance of the peculiar characters of massiveness and cranial
+flattening as presented by the Neanderthal type of skeleton continues to
+stimulate research. In addition to the scattered remarks already made on
+these subjects, two recently-published views demand special notice.
+
+(i) Professor Keith has (1911) been much impressed with the exuberance of
+bone-formation, and the parts it affects in the disease known as
+Acromegaly. The disease seems dependent upon an excessive activity of
+processes regulated by a glandular body in the floor of the brain-case
+(the pituitary gland). The suggestion is now advanced that a
+comparatively slight increase in activity might result in the production
+of such 'Neanderthaloid' characters as massive brow-ridges and limb
+bones. (Of existing races, some of the aborigines of Australia would
+appear to exemplify this process, but to a lesser degree than the extinct
+type, since the aboriginal limb bones are exempt.) Professor Keith adopts
+the view that the Neanderthal type is ancestral to the modern types. And
+his argument seems to run further to the following effect: that the
+evolution of the modern from the Neanderthal type of man was consequent
+on a change in the activity of the pituitary gland.
+
+It is quite possible that the agency to be considered in the next
+paragraph, viz. climatic environment, may play a part in influencing
+pituitary and other secretions. But heavy-browed skulls (and heavy brows
+are distinctive tests of the glandular activity under discussion) are not
+confined to particular latitudes, so that there are preliminary
+difficulties to be overcome in the further investigation of this point.
+It is possible that the glandular activity occasionally assumed
+pathological intensity even in prehistoric times. Thus a human skull with
+Leontiasis ossea was discovered near Rheims at a depth of fifteen feet
+below the level of the surrounding surface.
+
+(ii) Dr Sera[53] (1910) has been led to pay particular attention to the
+remarkably flattened cranial vaulting so often mentioned in the preceding
+paragraphs. As a rule, this flattening has been regarded as
+representative of a stage in the evolution of a highly-developed type of
+human skull from a more lowly, in fact a more simian one. This conclusion
+is challenged by Dr Sera. The position adopted is that a flattened skull
+need not in every case owe its presence to such a condition as an early
+stage in evolution assigns to it. Environment, for which we may here read
+climatic conditions, is a possible and alternative influence.
+
+If sufficient evidence can be adduced to shew that the flattened cranial
+arc in the Neanderthal skull does actually owe its origin to
+physiological factors through which environment acts, the status of that
+type of skull in the evolutionary sequence will be materially affected. A
+successful issue of the investigation will necessitate a thorough
+revision of all the results of Professor Schwalbe's work[54], which
+established the Neanderthal type as a distinct species (_Homo
+primigenius_) followed closely and not preceded by a type represented by
+the Gibraltar skull. Dr Sera commenced with a very minute examination of
+the Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. In particular, the characters of the
+face and the basal parts of the cranium were subjected to numerous and
+well-considered tests. As a first result of the comparison of the parts
+common to both crania, Dr Sera believes that he is in a position to draw
+correct inferences for the Neanderthal skull-cap in regard to portions
+absent from it but present in the Forbes Quarry skull.
+
+But in the second place, Dr Sera concludes that the characters in
+question reveal the fact that of the two, the Gibraltar skull is quite
+distinctly the lowlier form. And the very important opinion is expressed
+that the Gibraltar skull offers the real characters of a human being
+caught as it were in a lowly stage of evolution beyond which the
+Neanderthal skull together with all others of its class have already
+passed. The final extension of these arguments is also of remarkable
+import. The Gibraltar skull is flattened owing to its low place in
+evolution. But as regards the flatness of the brain-case (called the
+platycephalic character) of the Neanderthal calvaria and its congeners
+(as contrasted with the Gibraltar specimen), Dr Sera suggests dependence
+upon the particular environment created by glacial conditions. The effect
+is almost pathological, at least the boundary-line between such
+physiological flattening and that due to pathological processes is hard
+to draw. Upon this account therefore, Dr Sera's researches have been
+considered here in close association with the doctrines of Professor
+Keith.
+
+Dr Sera supports his argument by an appeal to existing conditions: he
+claims demonstration of the association (regarded by him as one of cause
+and effect) between arctic latitudes or climate on the one hand, and the
+flattening of the cranial vault on the other. Passing lightly over the
+Eskimo, although they stand in glaring contradiction to his view, he
+instances above all the Ostiak tribe of hyperborean Asia. The
+platycephalic character has a geographical distribution. Thus the skull
+is well arched in Northern Australia, but towards the south, in South
+Australia and Tasmania, the aboriginal skull is much less arched. It is
+thus shewn to become more distinctly platycephalic towards the antarctic
+regions, or at least in the regions of the Australian Continent
+considered by Professor Penck to have been glaciated. So too among the
+Bush natives of South Africa as contrasted with less southern types.
+
+The demonstration of a latitudinal distribution in the New World is
+complicated by the presence of the great Cordillera of the Rocky
+Mountains and Andes. Great altitudes are held by Dr Sera to possess close
+analogy with arctic or antarctic latitudes. Therefore the presence of
+flat heads (artificial deformation being excluded) in equatorial
+Venezuela is not surprising.
+
+It is felt that the foregoing statement, though made with every endeavour
+to secure accuracy, gives but an imperfect idea of the extent of Dr
+Sera's work. Yet in this place, nothing beyond the briefest summary is
+permissible. By way of criticism, it cannot be too strongly urged that
+the Eskimo provide a head-form exactly the converse of that postulated by
+Dr Sera as the outcome of 'glacial conditions.' Not that Dr Sera ignores
+this difficulty, but he brushes it aside with treatment which is
+inadequate. Moreover, the presence of the Aurignac man with a
+comparatively well-arched skull, following him of the Mousterian period,
+is also a difficulty. For the climate did not become suddenly cold at the
+end of the Mousterian period, and so far as evidence of arctic human
+surroundings goes, the fauna did not become less arctic in the Aurignac
+phase.
+
+
+
+
+                              _Conclusion._
+
+
+In section A of this chapter, an outline was given of the mode in which
+the evolution of the human form appears to be traceable backwards through
+the Neanderthal type to still earlier stages in which the human
+characters are so elementary as to be recognisable only with difficulty.
+
+Then (B) the considerations militating against unquestioning acquiescence
+in that view were grouped in sequence, commencing with the difficulties
+introduced by the acceptance (in all its significance) of the Galley Hill
+skeleton. From an entirely different point of view (C), it was shewn that
+many difficulties may be solved by the recognition of more than one
+primordial stock of human ancestors. Lastly (F) came the modifications of
+theory necessitated by appeals to the powerful influence of physiological
+factors, acting in some cases quite obscurely, in others having relation
+to climate and food.
+
+The impossibility of summing up in favour of one comprehensive scheme
+will be acknowledged. More research is needed; the flatness of a cranial
+arc is but one of many characters awaiting research. At the present time
+a commencement is being made with regard to the shape and proportions of
+the cavity bounded by the skull. From such characters we may aspire to
+learn something of the brain which was once active within those walls.
+Yet to-day the researches of Professors Keith and Anthony provide little
+more than the outlines of a sketch to which the necessary details can
+only be added after protracted investigation.
+
+It is tempting to look back to the time of the publication of Sir Charles
+Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man.' There we may find the author's vindication of
+his claims (made fifty years ago) for the greater antiquity of man. In
+comparison with that antiquity, Lyell believed the historical period
+'would appear quite insignificant in duration.' As to the course of human
+evolution, it was possible even at that early date to quote Huxley's
+opinion 'that the primordial stock whence man has proceeded need no
+longer be sought ... in the newer tertiaries, but that they may be looked
+for in an epoch more distant from the age of the Elephas primigenius than
+that is from us.'
+
+The human fossils at the disposal of those authors included the
+Neanderthal, the Engis, and the Denise bones. With the Neanderthal
+specimen we have (as already seen) to associate now a continually
+increasing number of examples. And (to mention the most recent discovery
+only) the Ipswich skeleton (p. 151) provides in its early surroundings a
+problem as hard to solve as those of the Engis skull and the 'fossil man
+of Denise.' But we have far more valuable evidence than Lyell and Huxley
+possessed, since the incomparable remains from Mauer and Trinil provide
+an interest as superior on the anatomical side as that claimed in
+Archaeology by the Sub-crag implements.
+
+Turning once more to the subject of human remains, the evolution of
+educated opinion and the oscillations of the latter deserve a word of
+notice. For instance, in 1863, the Engis skull received its full and due
+share of attention. Then in a period marked by the discoveries at Spy and
+Trinil, the claims of the Engis fossil fell somewhat into abeyance.
+To-day we see them again and even more in evidence. So it has been with
+regard to details. At one period, the amount of brain contained within
+the skull of the Neanderthal man was underestimated. Then that opinion
+was exchanged for wonder at the disproportionately large amount of space
+provided for the brain in the man of La Chapelle. The tableau is changed
+again, and we think less of the Neanderthal type and of its lowly
+position (in evolutionary history). Our thoughts are turned to a much
+more extended period to be allotted to the evolution of the higher types.
+Adaptations to climatic influences, the possibilities of degeneracy, of
+varying degrees of physiological activity, of successful (though at first
+aberrant) mutations all demand attention in the present state of
+knowledge.
+
+If progress since the foundations were laid by the giant workers of half
+a century ago appears slow and the advance negligible, let the extension
+of our recognition of such influences and possibilities be taken into
+account. The extraordinarily fruitful results of excavations during the
+last ten years may challenge comparison with those of any other period of
+similar duration.
+
+
+
+
+                                APPENDIX
+
+
+The forecast, made when the manuscript of the first impression of this
+little book was completed, and in reference to the rapid accumulation of
+evidence, has been justified.
+
+While it would be impossible to provide a review of all the additional
+literature of the last few months, it is thought reasonable to append
+notes on two subjects mentioned previously only in the preface.
+
+(A) A short account of the 'La Quina' skeleton has now appeared (in
+'L'Anthropologie,' 1911, No. 6, p. 730).
+
+The skull is of the form described so often above, as distinctive of the
+Neanderthaloid type, but the brow-ridges seem even more massive than in
+the other examples of that race. The cranial sutures are unclosed, so
+that the individual is shewn to be of mature age, or at any rate, not
+senile. The teeth are, however, much worn down. Nearly all the teeth have
+been preserved in situ, and they present certain features which have been
+observed in the teeth found in Jersey (S. Brelade's Cave).
+
+The skeleton lay in a horizontal position, but no evidence of an
+interment has been adduced. The bones were less than a metre below the
+present surface, and in a fine mud-like deposit, apparently ancient, and
+of a river-bed type. Implements were also found, and are referred
+unhesitatingly to the same horizon as the bones. The Mousterian period is
+thus indicated, but no absolutely distinctive implements were found. The
+general stratigraphical conditions are considered to assign the deposit
+to the base of what is termed the 'inferior Mousterian' level.
+
+(B) The 'sub-boulder-clay' skeleton, discovered near Ipswich in 1911, was
+in an extraordinarily contracted attitude. Many parts are absent or
+imperfect, owing to the solvent action of the surroundings, but what
+remains is sufficient to reveal several features of importance (cf. fig.
+29).
+
+Save in one respect, the skeleton is not essentially different from those
+of the existing representatives of humanity. The exception is provided by
+the shin-bone. That of the right limb has been preserved, and it presents
+an anomaly unique in degree, if not in kind, viz.: the substitution of a
+rounded for a sharp or keel-like edge to the front of the bone. It can
+hardly be other than an individual peculiarity, though the Spy tibia (No.
+1) suggests (by its sectional contour) the same conformation.
+
+So far as the skeleton is concerned, even having regard to the anomaly
+just mentioned, there is no good reason for assigning the Ipswich
+specimen to a separate racial type.
+
+Its interest depends largely upon the circumstances of its surroundings.
+It was placed beneath about four feet of 'boulder-clay,' embedded partly
+in this and, to a much smaller extent, in the underlying middle-glacial
+sand which the bones just entered.
+
+There is some evidence that the surface on which the bones lay was at one
+time exposed as an old 'land-surface.' A thin band of carbonised
+vegetable matter (not far beneath the bones) contains the remains of land
+plants. On this surface the individual whose remains have been preserved
+is supposed to have met with his end, and to have been overwhelmed in a
+sand drift. The latter it must be supposed was then removed, to be
+replaced by the boulder-clay.
+
+Several alternatives to this rather problematical interpretation could be
+suggested. The most obvious of these is that we have to deal here with a
+neolithic interment, in a grave of which the floor just reached the
+middle-glacial sand of the locality. If we enquire what assumptions are
+requisite for the adoption of this particular alternative, we shall find,
+I think, that they are not very different in degree from those which are
+entailed by the supposition that the skeleton is really that of
+'sub-boulder-clay' man.
+
+The contracted attitude of the skeleton, and our familiarity of this as a
+feature of neolithic interments, taken together with the fact that the
+skeleton does not differ essentially from such as occur in interments of
+that antiquity, are points in favour of the neolithic age of the
+specimen. On the other hand, Mr Moir would urge that man certainly
+existed in an age previous to the deposition of the boulder-clay; that
+the implements discovered in that stratum support this claim; that the
+recent discovery of the bones of a mammoth on the same horizon (though
+not in the immediate vicinity) provides further support; that the state
+of mineralisation of the bones was the same in both cases, and that it is
+at least significant that they should be found on strata shewn (by other
+evidence) to have once formed a 'land-surface.'
+
+On the whole then, the view adopted here is, that the onus of proof rests
+at present rather with those who, rejecting these claims to the greater
+antiquity of this skeleton, assign it to a far later date than that to
+which even the overlying Boulder-clay is referred. And, so far as the
+literature is at present available, the rejection does not seem to have
+been achieved with a convincing amount of certainty.
+
+It is to be remarked, finally, that this discovery is entirely distinct
+from those made previously by Mr Moir in the deposits beneath the Red
+Crag of Suffolk, with which his name has become associated.
+
+  [Illustration: Fig. 29. Human skeleton found beneath Boulder-clay near
+                 Ipswich in 1911. (From the drawing prepared by Professor
+                 Keith, and published in the _East Anglian Daily Times_.
+                 Reproduced with permission.)]
+
+
+
+
+                        REFERENCES TO LITERATURE
+
+                                CHAPTER I
+
+
+  [1] Dubois, 1894. Pithecanthropus, ein Uebergangsform, &c.
+
+  [2] Blanckenhorn, 1910. Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie. Band 42, S. 337.
+
+  [3] Schwalbe, 1899. Zeitschrift fuer Morphologie und Anthropologie. From
+      1899 onwards.
+
+  [4] Berry, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, XXXI.
+      Part 1. 1910.
+
+  [5] Cross, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, XXXI.
+      Part 1. 1910.
+
+  [6] Schoetensack, 1908. Der Unterkiefer des 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 fuer Ethnologie, 1895, S. 338.
+
+  [12] Kramberger, 1899. Mittheilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft
+       zu Wien. "Der Mensch von Krapina." Wiesbaden, 1906.
+
+  [13] Marett, Archaeologia, 1911; also Keith, 1911. Nature, May 25, 1911.
+       Keith and Knowles, Journal of Anatomy, 1911.
+
+  [14] Boule, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome XIX. p. 519.
+
+  [15] Klaatsch and Hauser, 1908. Archiv fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, 1909,
+       p. 287.
+
+  [16] Peyrony (and Capitan), 1909-1910. Bulletins de la Societe
+       d'Anthropologie de Paris, Jan. 20, 1910.
+
+  [17] Sollas, 1907. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
+       Vol. 199 B.
+
+  [18] Sera, 1909. Atti della Societa romana di Antropologia, xv.
+       fasc. II.
+
+  [19] Verner, 1910. Ann. Rep. Hunterian Museum. R.C.S. London. Saturday
+       Review, Sep. 16, 1911, and five following numbers.
+
+  [20] Verneau, 1906. L'Anthropologie. Tome XVII.
+
+  [21] Lehmann-Nitsche, 1907. Rivista del Museo de la Plata, XIV. 1907.
+
+  [22] Lehmann-Nitsche, 1909. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift, Jena,
+       VIII. 42.
+
+  [23] Klaatsch, 1909. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, I.
+
+  [24] Newton, 1895. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, August,
+       1895.
+
+  [25] Schwalbe, 1906. "Der Schaedel von Bruex." Zeitsch. fuer Morphologie
+       und Anthropologie.
+
+  [26] Hinton, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. Vol. XXI.
+       Part 10. 1910.
+
+
+                               CHAPTER IV
+
+  [27] Gaudry, 1888. Les ancetres de nos animaux.
+
+  [28] Schmidt, 1909. Archiv fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, S. 62, 1909.
+
+  [29] Commont, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome XIX. p. 527.
+
+  [30] Obermaier and Bayer, 1909. Korrespondenzblatt der Wiener
+       anthropologischen Gesellschaft, XL. 9/12.
+
+  [31] Rutot, 1900. Congres international d'Archeologie prehistorique.
+       Paris, 1900.
+
+  [31] Rutot, 1904, ?1903. Quoted in Schwalbe 1906. "Vorgeschichte, usw."
+       Zeitschrift fuer Morphologie und Anthropologie.
+
+  [31] Rutot, 1911. Revue de l'Universite. Brussels, 1911.
+
+  [32] Penck, 1908. Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie. Band XL. S. 390.
+
+  [33] Laville, 1910. Bulletin de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris,
+       1910.
+
+  [34] Moir, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, July 16,
+       1910. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 1911.
+
+  [35] Warren, 1905. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.
+       XXXV., 1905, p. 337.
+
+  [36] Boule, 1905. L'Anthropologie. Tome XVI. "Sur l'origine des
+       Eolithes."
+
+  [37] Obermaier, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome XIX. p. 613 (abstract),
+       also p. 460 (abstract).
+
+  [38] Grist, 1910. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.
+       XL. 1910, p. 192.
+
+  [39] Sturge, 1909. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, January 1909
+       (published in 1911).
+
+
+                                CHAPTER V
+
+  [40] Falconer. 1865. Collected Memoirs. Vol. II. p. 587.
+
+  [41] Geikie, A. 1863. Text-book of Geology, 1903, p. 1312 and footnote
+       _ibidem_.
+
+  [42] Skertchley, 1878. The Fenland, p. 551.
+
+  [43] Boule, 1888. Revue d'Anthropologie, "Essai de stratigraphie
+       humaine."
+
+  [44] Hoernes, 1903. Urgeschichte des Menschen. (2nd Edn., 1908.)
+
+  [45] Obermaier, 1909. L'Anthropologie. Tome XX. p. 521.
+
+  [46] Sollas, 1908. Science Progress in the XXth Century, "Palaeolithic
+       Man." (Reprinted in book-form, 1911.)
+
+  [47] Boyd Dawkins, 1910. Huxley Lecture. Royal Anthropological
+       Institute, 1911.
+
+
+                               CHAPTER VI
+
+  [48] Gaudry, 1878. Mammiferes tertiaires.
+
+  [49] Klaatsch, 1909. Praehistorische Zeitschrift. Band I.
+
+  [50] Keith, 1911. Nature, Feb. 16, 1911 ... also Dec. 15, 1910.
+
+  [51] Schliz, 1909. Archiv fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, Ss. 239 et seq.
+       "Die vorgeschichtlichen Schaedeltypen der deutschen Laender."
+
+  [52] Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la
+       Etnologia, XL. 2.
+
+  [53] Sera, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la Etnologia, XL.
+       fasc. 3/4.
+
+  [54] Schwalbe, 1906. "Vorgeschichte des Menschen," Zeitschrift fuer
+       Morphologie und Anthropologie.
+
+
+  _Recent publications containing a summary of the latest discoveries._
+
+  Birkner. Beitraege zur Urgeschichte Bayerns. Bd XVII. 3/4. 1909.
+
+  Branco. Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, 1910.
+
+  Buttel-Reepen. Aus dem Werdegang der Menschheit. 1911.
+
+  Giuffrida-Ruggeri. "Applicazioni, &c." Monitore Zoologico Italiano.
+    No. 2. 1910. Rivista d'Italia. Agosto, 1911.
+
+  Keith. Hunterian Lectures, 1911. Ancient types of Mankind, 1911.
+
+  Kohlbrugge. Die morphologische Abstammung des Menschen, 1908.
+
+  Lankester. The Kingdom of Man. 1906.
+
+  Leche. Der Mensch. 1911.
+
+  McCurdy. "The Antiquity of Man in Europe." Smithsonian Report (1909),
+    p. 531. 1910.
+
+  Read and Smith, R. A. Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone Age.
+    British Museum, 1911.
+
+  Rutot. Revue de l'Universite. Bruxelles, January 1911.
+
+  Schwalbe. Darwin and Modern Science (Centenary volume), Cambridge,
+    1909.
+
+  Sollas. Palaeolithic Man. (Cf. No. 46 supra.) 1911.
+
+  Spulski. Zentralblatt fuer Zoologie. Band 17. Nos. 3/4. 1910.
+
+  Wright. Hunterian Lectures, Royal College of Surgeons, 1907.
+
+
+
+
+                                  INDEX
+
+
+  Acheulean type of implement, 83; _v. also_ S. Acheul
+
+  Acromegaly, 141
+
+  Adloff, 30
+
+  Ameghino, 54, 80
+
+  Andalusia, 20, 76
+
+  Andaman islands, aborigines of, 49
+
+  Anthony, 37, 147
+
+  Anthropoid Ape (_v. also_ Gorilla _and_ Orang-utan), 3, 13, 14, 17, 22
+
+  Arctomys, 70, 73
+
+  Atlas vertebra, 53, 54
+
+  Aurignac, 49; implements of the type of, 70, 74, 81; skeleton from,
+    135-138, 145; _v. also_ _Homo aurignacensis hauseri_
+
+  Australian aborigines, 50
+
+  Avebury, 17
+
+
+  Badger, 73
+
+  Baradero, 20, 53, 80
+
+  Bayer, 99
+
+  Berry, 9, 128
+
+  Bison _priscus_, 67; (species unknown), 72, 73, 75
+
+  Blanckenhorn (on Trinil strata), 4
+
+  Bos (? species), 72; _primigenius_ (_v. also_ Urus), 70, 74, 86, 139
+
+  Boulder-clay, 114, 115
+
+  Boule, 18, 20, 37, 45, 108, 109, 116, 117, 120
+
+  Brain, 3, 6, 7, 14, 37-39
+
+  Brain-case (as distinct from the face), 37, 45, 47, 55, 60-62
+
+  Branco, 54
+
+  Breuil, 108
+
+  Brow-ridges, 55, 61, 62
+
+  Brueckner, 116
+
+  Bruenn, 56, 57, 82
+
+  Bruex, 56, 57; strata, 81
+
+  Bury S. Edmunds, 134
+
+  Bush Race (South African aborigines), 50, 145
+
+  Busk, 19, 46
+
+
+  Canine fossa (of face), 36, 37, 55
+
+  Cave Bear, _v._ Ursus
+
+  Cave Hyaena, 78
+
+  Cervidae (_v. also_ Stag), 67, 92
+
+  Chelles, implements, 68, 83, 98
+
+  Classification of human fossil remains, 60; also Table A
+
+  Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), 55, 56, 81
+
+  Commont, 98, 99, 105, 125
+
+  Correze (_v. also_ La Chapelle), 71
+
+  Cranial base, 47
+
+  Croll, 116
+
+  Cro-Magnon, 79, 140
+
+  Cromer, forest-bed fauna, 66
+
+  Cross, 9, 130-132 (diagram, p. 131)
+
+  Cyrena _fluminalis_, 83
+
+
+  Dawkins, Boyd, 125
+
+  de Bohun, chateau, 122
+
+  Denise, 18, 147, 148
+
+  Dewlish, eoliths from, 109
+
+  Dolichocephalic proportions of skull, 55, 59
+
+  Dordogne, 20, 45: _v. also_ _H. mousteriensis hauseri_
+
+  Duan, Eocene eoliths, 106
+
+  Dubois, references under _Pithecanthropus erectus_
+
+
+  Elephas _antiquus_, 66, 67, 70, 78, 87, 88-90, 101, 120;
+    _meridionalis_, 101, 109; _primigenius_, _v._ Mammoth
+
+  Engis, 18, 19, 134, 147, 148
+
+  Eocene period, 106
+
+  Eoliths, 106-111
+
+  Erect attitude, 7, 61, 147
+
+
+  Falconer, 46, 114
+
+  Forbes Quarry (_v. also_ Gibraltar), 19, 20, 32, 46-49, 76
+
+  Forest-bed, _v._ Cromer
+
+  Frizzi, 44
+
+
+  Galley Hill, 20; gravel pit, 82, 84; skeleton, 56-59, 86, 95, 130-132,
+    134
+
+  Gaudry, 50
+
+  Geikie, Sir A., 115
+
+  Geikie, J., 116
+
+  Germany, caves in, 95-98, 100
+
+  Ghilain, 109
+
+  Gibraltar (_v. also_ Forbes Quarry), 19, 46-49, 76, 143-144
+
+  Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 140
+
+  Gorilla (_v._ Anthropoid Ape), 136-138
+
+  Grimaldi (_v. also_ Grotte des Enfants), 50-52
+
+  Grotte des Enfants, 20, 76-79
+
+  Grotte du Prince, 120
+
+  Guenz, glacial phase of, 119
+
+
+  Hauser, 39, 55: _v._ 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
+
+
+  Jalon river (Aragon) implements, 101
+
+  Jawbone, 11-16, 26, 27, 29-31, 34, 37, 41-43, 53, 55, 60, 62
+
+  Jersey, _v._ S. Brelade
+
+  Julien, 116
+
+
+  Keith, 31, 137, 138, 140, 142, 144, 147
+
+  Klaatsch, 20, 28, 36, 56; _diphyletic theory_, 135, 136, 139
+
+  Kramberger, 20, 24, 27, 30
+
+  Krapina, 20, 24-31, 32, 34, 42, 68-71; _fauna_, 91, 92
+
+
+  La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 20, 33-39, 47, 71
+
+  La Ferrassie, 20, 39, 45, 74, 75, 98
+
+  Laloy, 30
+
+  La Naulette, 18, and fig. 14
+
+  La Quina, preface, vi, 39, 150
+
+  Laville, 106, 125
+
+  Lehmann-Nitsche, 20, 54, 80
+
+  Le Mas d'Azil, 95, 97
+
+  Le Moustier, 29, 45; _cave_, 73-75: _v. also_ Mousterian
+
+  Leontiasis _ossea_, 142
+
+  Levallois, 68
+
+  Limb bones, 50, 55
+
+  Loess, 79, 80; in Lower Austria, 124
+
+  Lyell, 114, 117, 147, 148
+
+
+  Macnamara, 46
+
+  Maffle, implements of, 83, 102, 104
+
+  Magdalenian period, 121
+
+  Malarnaud, 18
+
+  Mammoth, 18, 82, 92
+
+  Manouvrier, 15, 34, 38
+
+  Marett, 20, 30
+
+  Marmot, 70, 73
+
+  Mastoid process, 55
+
+  Mauer, _v. also_ _H. heidelbergensis_, 65-66, 90, 104, 148
+
+  Mentone, _v._ Grimaldi _and_ Grotte des Enfants
+
+  Mimomys, 88, 89
+
+  Mindel, glacial phase of, 119
+
+  Miocene period, 80
+
+  Moir, 106, 109
+
+  Monte Hermoso, 20, 53, 54, 80
+
+  Morlot, 115
+
+  Mortillet, 117
+
+  Mousterian period, 121-125; _types of implement of_, 67, 68, 70, 71, 78,
+    94-98, 118, 134
+
+  Munck, 109
+
+  Mural decorative art in caves, 76
+
+
+  Neanderthal, 18, 19, 24, 27, 34-36, 38, 47, 55, 131-138, 147, 148
+
+  Negroid characters, 50, 52
+
+  Nehring, 20
+
+  Neolithic implements, 109
+
+  Newton, 20, 57
+
+  New World, _v._ S. America
+
+  Nicolle, 30
+
+  Northfleet, 57: _v._ Galley Hill
+
+
+  Obermaier, 68, 99, 108, 116, 117
+
+  Ofnet, 96-98, 100
+
+  Oligocene period, implements in, 110
+
+  Orang-utan, 136-138: _v. also_ Anthropoid Ape
+
+  Ostiaks, cranial form, 144
+
+
+  Pech de l'Aze, 20, 46, 75
+
+  Penck, 106, 107, 116-124, 126
+
+  Peyrony, 20, 45
+
+  _Pithecanthropus erectus_, 1-9, 14, 15, 31, 54, 63-65, 148
+
+  Pituitary gland and secretion, 141, 142
+
+  Pleistocene mammals and period, 66, 84
+
+  Pliocene strata, 64, 80
+
+  Prestwich, 114
+
+  Prince of Monaco, 50
+
+  Prognathism, 36, 50
+
+  Pruner-Bey, 49
+
+  Pygmy types of mankind, 49, 54
+
+
+  Ramsay, 115
+
+  Reindeer, 71, 73-75, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92
+
+  Rhinoceros _etruscus_, 66, 87-89; _megarhinus_, 87-89; _merckii_, 67,
+    70, 78, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 120; _tichorhinus_, 71, 73, 82, 92
+
+  Riss, glacial phase of, 119
+
+  River-drift, 115
+
+  Ronda, 49
+
+  Roth, 20
+
+  Rutot, 83, 102-107, 111
+
+
+  S. Acheul, 68, 101, 134
+
+  S. Brelade, 20, 30, 32, 71, 150, Table A
+
+  Saporta, 125
+
+  Schliz, 140
+
+  Schmidt, 95, 125
+
+  Schoetensack, 65, 66
+
+  Schwalbe, 4, 9, 20, 27, 46, 82
+
+  Scott, 80
+
+  Sera, 20, 46-48, 142-146
+
+  Sinel, 30
+
+  Sirgenstein, 96-98, 100
+
+  Skeletons, contracted position of, 73, 74, 78
+
+  Skertchley, 116, 117
+
+  Sollas, 20, 46, 124
+
+  Solutre-period and implements of, 124
+
+  South America, 20, 52-55, 79-81
+
+  Southern fauna, 67
+
+  Spy cave-men, 18, 19, 21, 24, 32, 34, 35, 44, 53
+
+  Stag, 75: _v. also_ Cervidae
+
+  Stature, 38, 44, 49, 59, 61
+
+  Steinmann, 80
+
+  Stone implements, value in evidence, 93
+
+  Strepy, implements of, 83, 102, 104
+
+  Sturge, 109, 117
+
+  Suidae, _v._ Swine
+
+  Swine, 67, 92, 139
+
+
+  Taubach, 10, 20, 21-23, 31, 53, 67, 70, 86; _fauna_, 123; _implements_,
+    78, 98, 101
+
+  Teeth, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21-23, 26, 27, 29-31, 41, 42, 50, 53, 60, 62
+
+  Tertiary mollusca, 80
+
+  Tetraprothomo, 54
+
+  Thames gravels, 83
+
+  Tilloux, implements and fauna of, 101
+
+  Tornqvist, 117
+
+  Trinil, 66, _v. also_  _P. erectus_
+
+  Trogontherium, 87, 89
+
+  Turner, 19
+
+
+  Ursus _arctos_, 70; _arvernensis_, 66, 88, 89; _deningeri_, 66;
+    _spelaeus_, 66, 70, 72
+
+  Urus, _v. Bos primigenius_
+
+
+  Venezuela, 145
+
+  Verneau, 20, 50, 51
+
+  Verner, 20, 49
+
+  Voles, 92; _v._ Mimomys
+
+
+  Walkhoff, 30
+
+  Warren, 108
+
+  Weiss, 67
+
+  Wildkirchli, 122
+
+  Wolf, 73
+
+  Wuerm: glacial phase of, 119
+
+  Wuerttemburg, caverns of, 95-98, 100
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+     CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+THE CAMBRIDGE MANUALS OF SCIENCE AND LITERATURE
+
+
+Published by the Cambridge University Press under the general editorship
+of P. Giles, Litt.D., Master of Emmanuel College, and A. C. Seward,
+F.R.S., Professor of Botany in the University of Cambridge.
+
+A series of handy volumes dealing with a wide range of subjects and
+bringing the results of modern research and intellectual activity within
+the reach both of the student and of the ordinary reader.
+
+
+                          80 VOLUMES NOW READY
+
+
+                        _HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY_
+
+  42 Ancient Assyria. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.
+
+  51 Ancient Babylonia. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.
+
+  40 A History of Civilization in Palestine. By Prof. R. A. S.
+     Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.
+
+  78 The Peoples of India. By J. D. Anderson, M.A.
+
+  49 China and the Manchus. By Prof. H. A. Giles, LL.D.
+
+  79 The Evolution of Modern Japan. By J. H. Longford.
+
+  43 The Civilization of Ancient Mexico. By Lewis Spence.
+
+  60 The Vikings. By Prof. Allen Mawer, M.A.
+
+  24 New Zealand. By the Hon. Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G., LL.D., and
+     J. Logan Stout, LL.B. (N.Z.).
+
+  76 Naval Warfare. By J. R. Thursfield, M.A.
+
+  15 The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church. By A. Hamilton
+     Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.
+
+  16 The Historical Growth of the English Parish Church. By A.
+     Hamilton Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.
+
+  68 English Monasteries. By A. H. Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.
+
+  50 Brasses. By J. S. M. Ward, B.A., F.R.Hist.S.
+
+  59 Ancient Stained and Painted Glass. By F. S. Eden.
+
+  80 A Grammar of Heraldry. By W. H. St J. Hope, Litt.D.
+
+
+                               _ECONOMICS_
+
+  70 Copartnership in Industry. By C. R. Fay, M.A.
+
+   6 Cash and Credit. By D. A. Barker.
+
+  67 The Theory of Money. By D. A. Barker.
+
+
+                           _LITERARY HISTORY_
+
+   8 The Early Religious Poetry of the Hebrews. By the Rev. E. G.
+     King, D.D.
+
+  21 The Early Religious Poetry of Persia. By the Rev. Prof. J. Hope
+     Moulton, D.D., D.Theol. (Berlin).
+
+   9 The History of the English Bible. By John Brown, D.D.
+
+  12 English Dialects from the Eighth Century to the Present Day. By
+     W. W. Skeat, Litt.D., D.C.L., F.B.A.
+
+  22 King Arthur in History and Legend. By Prof. W. Lewis Jones, M.A.
+
+  54 The Icelandic Sagas. By W. A. Craigie, LL.D.
+
+  23 Greek Tragedy. By J. T. Sheppard, M.A.
+
+  33 The Ballad in Literature. By T. F. Henderson.
+
+  37 Goethe and the Twentieth Century. By Prof. J. G. Robertson,
+     M.A., Ph.D.
+
+  39 The Troubadours. By the Rev. H. J. Chaytor, M.A.
+
+  66 Mysticism in English Literature. By Miss C. F. E. Spurgeon.
+
+
+                        _PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION_
+
+   4 The Idea of God in Early Religions. By Dr F. B. Jevons.
+
+  57 Comparative Religion. By Dr F. B. Jevons.
+
+  69 Plato: Moral and Political Ideals. By Mrs J. Adam.
+
+  26 The Moral Life and Moral Worth. By Prof. Sorley, Litt.D.
+
+   3 The English Puritans. By John Brown, D.D.
+
+  11 An Historical Account of the Rise and Development of
+     Presbyterianism in Scotland. By the Rt Hon. the Lord Balfour of
+     Burleigh, K.T., G.C.M.G.
+
+  41 Methodism. By Rev. H. B. Workman, D.Lit.
+
+
+                               _EDUCATION_
+
+  38 Life in the Medieval University. By R. S. Rait, M.A.
+
+                                  _LAW_
+
+  13 The Administration of Justice in Criminal Matters (in England
+     and Wales). By G. Glover Alexander, M.A., LL.M.
+
+
+                                _BIOLOGY_
+
+   1 The Coming of Evolution. By Prof. J. W. Judd, C.B., F.R.S.
+
+   2 Heredity in the Light of Recent Research. By L. Doncaster, M.A.
+
+  25 Primitive Animals. By Geoffrey Smith, M.A.
+
+  73 The Life-story of Insects. By Prof. G. H. Carpenter.
+
+  48 The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. By J. S. Huxley, B.A.
+
+  27 Life in the Sea. By James Johnstone, B.Sc.
+
+  75 Pearls. By Prof. W. J. Dakin.
+
+  28 The Migration of Birds. By T. A. Coward.
+
+  36 Spiders. By C. Warburton, M.A.
+
+  61 Bees and Wasps. By O. H. Latter, M.A.
+
+  46 House Flies. By C. G. Hewitt, D.Sc.
+
+  32 Earthworms and their Allies. By F. E. Beddard, F.R.S.
+
+  74 The Flea. By H. Russell.
+
+  64 The Wanderings of Animals. By H. F. Gadow, F.R.S.
+
+
+                             _ANTHROPOLOGY_
+
+  20 The Wanderings of Peoples. By Dr A. C. Haddon, F.R.S.
+
+  29 Prehistoric Man. By Dr W. L. H. Duckworth.
+
+
+                                _GEOLOGY_
+
+  35 Rocks and their Origins. By Prof. Grenville A. J. Cole.
+
+  44 The Work of Rain and Rivers. By T. G. Bonney, Sc.D.
+
+   7 The Natural History of Coal. By Dr E. A. Newell Arber.
+
+  30 The Natural History of Clay. By Alfred B. Searle.
+
+  34 The Origin of Earthquakes. By C. Davison, Sc.D., F.G.S.
+
+  62 Submerged Forests. By Clement Reid, F.R.S.
+
+  72 The Fertility of the Soil. By E. J. Russell, D.Sc.
+
+
+                                _BOTANY_
+
+   5 Plant-Animals: a Study in Symbiosis. By Prof. F. W. Keeble.
+
+  10 Plant-Life on Land. By Prof. F. O. Bower, Sc.D., F.R.S.
+
+  19 Links with the Past in the Plant-World. By Prof. A. C. Seward, F.R.S.
+
+
+                                _PHYSICS_
+
+  52 The Earth. By Prof. J. H. Poynting, F.R.S.
+
+  53 The Atmosphere. By A. J. Berry, M.A.
+
+  65 Beyond the Atom. By John Cox, M.A.
+
+  55 The Physical Basis of Music. By A. Wood, M.A.
+
+  71 Natural Sources of Energy. By Prof. A. H. Gibson, D.Sc.
+
+
+                              _PSYCHOLOGY_
+
+  14 An Introduction to Experimental Psychology. By Dr C. S. Myers.
+
+  45 The Psychology of Insanity. By Bernard Hart, M.D.
+
+  77 The Beautiful. By Vernon Lee.
+
+
+                   _INDUSTRIAL AND MECHANICAL SCIENCE_
+
+  31 The Modern Locomotive. By C. Edgar Allen, A.M.I.Mech.E.
+
+  56 The Modern Warship. By E. L. Attwood.
+
+  17 Aerial Locomotion. By E. H. Harper, M.A., and Allan E. Ferguson,
+     B.Sc.
+
+  18 Electricity in Locomotion. By A. G. Whyte, B.Sc.
+
+  63 Wireless Telegraphy. By Prof. C. L. Fortescue, M.A.
+
+  58 The Story of a Loaf of Bread. By Prof. T. B. Wood, M.A.
+
+  47 Brewing. By A. Chaston Chapman, F.I.C.
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+"A very valuable series of books which combine in a very happy way a
+popular presentation of scientific truth along with the accuracy of
+treatment which in such subjects is essential.... In their general
+appearance, and in the quality of their binding, print, and paper, these
+volumes are perhaps the most satisfactory of all those which offer to the
+inquiring layman the hardly earned products of technical and specialist
+research."--_Spectator_
+
+"A complete set of these manuals is as essential to the equipment of a
+good school as is an encyclopaedia.... We can conceive no better series
+of handy books for ready reference than those represented by the
+Cambridge Manuals."--_School World_
+
+                       Cambridge University Press
+                           C. F. Clay, Manager
+                        LONDON: Fetter Lane. E.C.
+                      EDINBURGH: 100 Princes Street
+
+                    *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Notes:
+
+The original spelling and minor inconsistencies in the spelling and
+formatting have been maintained.
+
+Inconsistent hyphenation and accents are as in the original if not marked
+as a misprint.
+
+Text in italics has been marked with underscores (_text_) and bold text
+with equal signs (=text=)
+
+The ligature oe has been marked as [oe] and the caron above c as [vc].
+
+Table A has been re-arranged to fit the line size.
+
+Table II and B have been split into two parts.
+
+The table below lists all corrections applied to the original text.
+
+  p. 9: to be justified, -> to be justified.
+  p. 42: Fig 14. -> Fig. 14.
+  p. 71: (Correze) -> (_Correze_)
+  p. 72: (Correze). [From Boule.] -> (From Boule.)
+  p. 73: (Dordogne) -> (_Dordogne_)
+  p. 74: implements were scattered -> scattered.
+  p. 79: in the preceding chapter, -> chapter
+  p. 110: from the effects of fortuitious -> fortuitous
+  p. 136: as also between _N_ -> _C_
+  p. 154: Band XII, s. 15. -> Band XII. S. 15.
+  p. 154: fuer Ethnologie, 1895, s. 338. -> S. 338.
+  p. 155: fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, s. 62 -> S. 62
+  p. 156: fuer Ethnologie. Band XL. s. 390 -> S. 390
+  p. 156: 2nd Edn -> Edn.
+  p. 156: Sollas 1908 -> Sollas, 1908
+  p. 157: Die morphologische Abstaemmung -> Abstammung
+  p. 158: v. also -> _v. also_
+  p. 159: v. also -> _v. also_
+  p. 159: Heidelberg, v. -> Heidelberg, _v._
+  p. 160: v. also -> _v. also_
+  p. 161: v. also -> _v. also_
+  p. 161: Urus, v. -> Urus, _v._
+  p. 166: By A. Wood, M.A -> M.A.
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 44331.txt or 44331.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/3/3/44331/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by The Internet Archive)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/44331.zip b/old/44331.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..948a563
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/44331.zip