diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/44331-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44331-8.txt | 5053 |
1 files changed, 5053 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. |