1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<title>
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth.
</title>
<link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
<style type="text/css">
body {
margin-left: 10%;
margin-right: 10%;
}
h1 {text-align: center;
margin-top: 2em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 2em;
clear: both;
}
h2 {text-align: center;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
font-size: 1.5em;
clear: both;
}
h3 {text-align: center;
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
font-size: 1.25em;
clear: both;
}
p {margin-top: .51em;
text-align: justify;
margin-bottom: .49em;
text-indent: 1em;
}
p.title {text-align: center;
text-indent: 0;
line-height: 1.4em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}
hr.hr65 {width: 65%;
margin-top: 2em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
clear: both;
}
hr.hr95 {width: 95%;
margin-top: 2em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
clear: both;
}
div.note {border: black 1px dashed;
padding: 0.5em;
}
table {margin-top: 0.5em;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
.bblt {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-left: solid black 1px; border-top: solid black 1px;}
.bblr {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; border-top: solid black 1px;}
table#p20 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
table#p20 td.td1 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p20 td.td2 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
table#p84 td.td1 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td2 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td3 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td4 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td5 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td6 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td7 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p84 td.td8 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
table#p97 td.td1 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td2 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td3 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td4 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td5 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td6 {text-align: left;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td7 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td8 {text-align: left;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p97 td.td9 {text-align: left;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
table#p100 td.td1 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td2 {text-align: center;
border-left: 3px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td3 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td4 {text-align: center;
border-left: 3px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td5 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td6 {text-align: right;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td7 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td8 {text-align: center;
border-left: 3px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td9 {text-align: center;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td10 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td11 {text-align: center;
border-left: 3px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td12 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p100 td.td13 {text-align: right;
border-bottom: 1px solid black}
table#p118 {margin: 2em auto; border-collapse: collapse;}
table#p118 td.td1 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td2 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td3 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-top: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td4 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td5 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td6 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td7 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 3px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td8 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td9 {text-align: center;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td10 {text-align: center;
border-left: 3px solid black;
border-bottom: 3px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td11 {text-align: center;
border-left: 3px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td12 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-right: 1px solid black;}
table#p118 td.td13 {text-align: left;
border-left: 1px solid black;
border-bottom: 1px solid black;}
.tdl {text-align: left;}
.tdr {text-align: right;}
.tdc {text-align: center;}
.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
/*visibility: hidden;*/
position: absolute;
left: 92%;
font-size: smaller;
text-align: right;}
.blockquot {
margin-left: 10%;
margin-right: 10%;}
.center {text-align: center;}
.right {text-align: right;}
.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;}
.u {text-decoration: underline;}
.caption {font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;}
ul {list-style-type: none;
font-size: 1em;}
/* Images */
.figcenter {
margin: auto;
text-align: center;}
/* Footnotes */
.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
.fnanchor {
vertical-align: super;
font-size: .8em;
text-decoration:
none;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44331 ***</div>
<p class="title"><span style="font-size: 125%">The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature</span></p>
<h1>PREHISTORIC MAN</h1>
<p class="title"><span style="font-size: 125%">CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 125%">London: FETTER LANE, E.C.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 125%">C. F. CLAY, <span class="smcap">Manager</span></span></p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_ii.jpg" width="263" height="274"
alt="illustration"
title="illustration" />
</div>
<p class="title">London: H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET, W.C.<br />
WILLIAM WESLEY & SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND<br />
Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.<br />
Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS<br />
New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS<br />
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., <span class="smcap">Ltd.</span><br /><br /><br />
All rights reserved</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_iii.jpg" width="515" height="800"
alt="front_page"
title="front_page" />
</div>
<p class="title"><i>First Edition</i>, 1912<br />
<i>Second Edition</i>, 1912</p>
<p><i>With the exception of the coat of arms at
the foot, the design on the title page is a
reproduction of one used by the earliest known
Cambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521</i></p>
<hr class="hr95" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p>
<h2>PREFACE</h2>
<p>This book deals with the earliest phases in the
past history of Mankind: the selected period
ends at the Aurignacian division of the Palaeolithic
Age. I regret to be unable to affix definite dates in
years to the several divisions of time now recognised.
To illustrate the difficulty of forming conclusions on
this subject, it should be noted that in 1904 Professor
Rutot (p. 103) assigned a duration of 139,000 years to
the Pleistocene period, while in 1909 Dr Sturge
claimed 700,000 years for a portion only of the same
period. Evidently the present tendency is to increase
enormously the drafts on geological time, and to
measure in millions the years that have elapsed since
the first traces of human existence were deposited.</p>
<p>But in the face of estimates which differ so widely,
it seemed preferable to distinguish subdivisions of
time by reference to animal-types or the forms of
stone-implements, rather than by the lapse of years.</p>
<p>In the attempt to summarise a considerable
amount of evidence, I have tried to select the facts
most relevant to the subject in hand. And where an
opinion is expressed I have endeavoured to indicate
the reasons for the decision that is adopted.</p>
<p>Additional evidence is pouring in at the present
time, and there is no doubt but that the next few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span>
years will witness great extensions of knowledge. In
this connection, I take the opportunity of mentioning
the discovery made a few weeks ago by M. Henri
Martin at La Quina, of a human skeleton resembling
the Neanderthal type but presenting (it is said)
definite features of inferiority to that type. Another
subject of vast importance is Mr Moir's recent
demonstration (p. 106) of elaborately worked implements
resting beneath strata referred to the Pliocene
period.</p>
<p>For the loan of blocks, or for permission to
reproduce illustrations, my cordial thanks are due to
the editors and publishers of the journals mentioned
in the following list. The authors' names are appended
to the several illustrations.</p>
<div class="blockquot">
Anatomischer Anzeiger,<br />
Archiv für Anthropologie,<br />
Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia,<br />
Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns,<br />
Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft,<br />
L'Anthropologie,<br />
Royal Dublin Society,<br />
Royal Society of Edinburgh,<br />
Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.
</div>
<p style="margin-left: 60%;">W. L. H. DUCKWORTH</p>
<p style="margin-left: 10%; text-indent: 0;"><i>December</i> 11, 1911</p>
<hr class="hr95" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p>
<h2>CONTENTS</h2>
<table summary="TOC">
<tr>
<td class="tdr">CHAP.</td>
<td class="tdl"> </td>
<td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">I.</td>
<td class="tdl">The Precursors of Palaeolithic Man</td>
<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">II.</td>
<td class="tdl">Palaeolithic Man</td>
<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">III.</td>
<td class="tdl">Alluvial Deposits and Caves</td>
<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">IV.</td>
<td class="tdl">Associated Animals and Implements</td>
<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">V.</td>
<td class="tdl">Human Fossils and Geological Chronology</td>
<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_112">112</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">VI.</td>
<td class="tdl">Human Evolution in the light of recent research</td>
<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
<table summary="tables">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td class="tdc">Table</td>
<td class="tdl">A<span style="margin-left: 150px;"><i>to</i></span></td>
<td class="tdc"><i>face</i></td>
<td class="tdc"><i>p.</i></td>
<td class="tdr">85</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
<td class="tdl">B<span style="margin-left: 150px;"><i>to</i></span></td>
<td class="tdc"><i>„</i></td>
<td class="tdc"><i>„</i></td>
<td class="tdr">118</td>
</tr>
</table>
<hr class="hr65" />
<h2>LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS</h2>
<table summary="TOC">
<tr>
<td class="tdr">FIG.</td>
<td class="tdl"> </td>
<td class="tdr">PAGE</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">1.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc. (From Dubois)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_1.jpg">5</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">2.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of Jawbones, (A) Mauer (B) ancient Briton</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_2.jpg">11</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">3.</td>
<td class="tdl">Tooth from Taubach: surface of crown. (From Nehring)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_3.jpg">22</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">4.</td>
<td class="tdl">Tooth of Chimpanzee. (From Nehring)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_3.jpg">22</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdc">5, 6.</td>
<td class="tdl">Tooth from Taubach: inner and outer sides. (From Nehring)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_5.jpg">23</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">7.</td>
<td class="tdl">Human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_7.jpg">25</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">8.</td>
<td class="tdl">Tracings of teeth from Krapina and Mauer. (From Kramberger)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_8.jpg">29</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">9.</td>
<td class="tdl">Human skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Birkner)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_9.jpg">33</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">10.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints etc. (From Boule)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_10.jpg">35</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">11.</td>
<td class="tdl">Contours of skulls, (A) New Guinea man (B) European woman</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_11.jpg">36</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">12.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracing of human skull from Le Moustier</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_12.jpg">40</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">13.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer and Le Moustier</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_13.jpg">41</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">14.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer, La Naulette, etc. (From Frizzi)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_14.jpg">42</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">15.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of jawbones, (A) ancient Briton (B) Le Moustier (C) Mauer</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_15.jpg">43</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">16.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of the Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar) skull. (From Sera)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_16.jpg">48</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">17.</td>
<td class="tdl">Human skull of the Grimaldi-type. (From Birkner)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_17.jpg">51</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">18.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skulls from Galley Hill etc. (From Klaatsch)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_18.jpg">58</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">19.</td>
<td class="tdl">Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. (From Dubois)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_19.jpg">64</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">20.</td>
<td class="tdl">View of the Mauer sand-pit. (From Birkner)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_20.jpg">65</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">21.</td>
<td class="tdl">Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. (From Birkner)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_21.jpg">69</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">22.</td>
<td class="tdl">Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Boule)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_22.jpg">72</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">23.</td>
<td class="tdl">Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Boule)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_23.jpg">77</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">24.</td>
<td class="tdl">Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene time. (From Penck)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_24.jpg">107</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">25.</td>
<td class="tdl">Chart of oscillations of snow-level in the Glacial period. (From Penck)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">26.</td>
<td class="tdl">Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc. (From Dubois)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_26.jpg">129</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">27.</td>
<td class="tdl">Position of Palaeolithic Man in the scale of evolution. (From Cross)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_27.jpg">131</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">28.</td>
<td class="tdl">Thigh-bones arranged to illustrate Klaatsch's theory.</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_28.jpg">136</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">29.</td>
<td class="tdl">The human skeleton found beneath the Boulder-clay at Ipswich.
(From a drawing by Dr Keith, reproduced with permission)</td>
<td class="tdr" valign="bottom"><a href="#img_29.jpg">153</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
<hr class="hr95" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER I<br />
<span style="font-size: 80%;">THE PRECURSORS OF PALAEOLITHIC MAN</span></h2>
<p>Our knowledge of prehistoric man is based naturally
upon the study of certain parts of the human
skeleton preserved in a fossil state. In addition to
these materials, other evidence is available in the
form of certain products of human industry. These
include such objects as implements of various kinds,
owing their preservation to the almost indestructible
nature of their material, or again artistic representations,
whether pictorial or glyptic.</p>
<p>The evidence of the bones themselves will be considered
first, partly for convenience and partly in
view of the cogency possessed by actual remains of
the human frame. Other branches of the subject
will come under review afterwards.</p>
<p>Of all the discoveries of ancient remains, whether
possibly or certainly human, two in particular stand out
pre-eminently in marked relief. The specimens thus
distinguished are known as the remains of <i>Pithecanthropus
erectus</i>, on the one hand, and on the other
a jaw-bone which is attributed to a human type described
(from the locality of the discovery) as <i>Homo
heidelbergensis</i>.</p>
<p>The geological antiquity assigned in each instance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span>
is greater than that claimed for any bones acknowledged
unreservedly to be human.</p>
<p>It is thus clear that a high value attaches to these
specimens if they be regarded as documents testifying
to the course of human evolution. When the bones
are examined, the contrast they provide with all
human remains is so marked as to emphasise at once
the necessity for a thorough and critical examination
of their structure.</p>
<h3><i>Pithecanthropus erectus.</i></h3>
<p>In the case of these bones, the facts are now so
widely known and so easily accessible as to render
unnecessary any detailed exposition here. The
discoveries were made in the years 1891 and 1892
by Professor Dubois<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>, who was engaged at the
time on an investigation of the remains of various
animals found embedded in a river-bank in Java.
As is well known, the actual remains are scanty.
They comprise the upper part of a skull, part of a
lower jaw (which has never been described), three
teeth, and a left thigh-bone.</p>
<p>[1] The numbers refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume.</p>
<p>Before entering upon any criticism of the results
of Professor Dubois' studies, it is convenient to give
a general statement of his conclusions. Here we
find described a creature of Pliocene age, presenting
a form so extraordinary as hardly to be considered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span>
human, placed so it seems between the human and
simian tribes. It is Caliban, a missing link,—in
fact a Pithecanthropus.</p>
<p>With the erect attitude and a stature surpassing
that of many modern men were combined the heavy
brows and narrow forehead of a flattened skull,
containing little more than half the weight of brain
possessed by an average European. The molar teeth
were large with stout and divergent roots.</p>
<p>The arguments founded upon the joint consideration
of the length of the thigh-bone and the capacity
of the skull are of the highest interest. For the former
dimension provides a means of estimating approximately
the body-weight, while the capacity gives
an indication of the brain-weight. The body-weight
is asserted to have been about 70 kgm. (eleven stone)
and the brain-weight about 750 gm. And the ratio
of the two weights is approximately <sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>94</sub>. The
corresponding ratios for a large anthropoid ape
(Orang-utan) and for man are given in the table
following, thus:</p>
<table summary="pg3">
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Orang-utan</td>
<td class="tdc"><sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>183</sub></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl"><i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i></td>
<td class="tdc"><sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>94</sub></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Man</td>
<td class="tdc"><sup>1</sup>⁄<sub>51</sub></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>The intermediate position of the Javanese fossil is
clearly revealed.</p>
<p>The same sequence is shewn by a series of tracings
representative of the cranial arc in the middle line<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>
of the head (Fig. 1). And the results of many tests
of this kind, applied not only by Professor Dubois
but also by Professor Schwalbe, are confirmatory
of the ‘intermediate’ position claimed for <i>Pithecanthropus
erectus</i>. The molar teeth are of inadequate
size if the skull-cap is that of an ape, whereas they
are slightly larger than the corresponding teeth
furnished by primitive existing human types. And now
some of the objections to this account may be taken.</p>
<p>In the first place, the claim to Pliocene antiquity
is contested. So keen an interest was excited by
Professor Dubois' discovery that more than one
expedition has been dispatched to survey and review
the ground. It is now declared in certain quarters
that the horizon is lower Quaternary: I do not know
that any attempt has been made to reduce the age
of the strata further. As the matter stands, the
difference is not very material, but Professor Dubois
refuses to accept the revised estimate and still adheres
to his own determination. Incidentally the more
recent work (Blanckenhorn<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>, 1910) has resulted in the
discovery of a tooth claimed as definitely human (this
is not the case with the teeth of <i>Pithecanthropus
erectus</i>), and yet of an antiquity surpassing that of
the remains found by Professor Dubois. The latter
appears unconvinced as to the genuineness of the find,
but no doubt the case will be fully discussed in publications
now in the course of preparation.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_1.jpg" width="600" height="417"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_1.jpg" id="img_1.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 1. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a common dimension, viz. the
line <i>Gl—Op</i>, representing a base-line of the brain-case. <i>Pe</i>, Pithecanthropus.
<i>Papua</i>, a New Guinea native. <i>Hl</i>, <i>Sm</i>, <i>At</i> are from skulls of monkeys. (After
Dubois.)</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p>
<p>Professor Dubois assigned the bones to one and
the same skeleton, and for this he has been severely
criticised. Apart from arguments affecting the
geological age of the specimens, the question of
their forming part of a single individual is very
momentous. For if two skeletons are represented,
one may be human, while the other is that of an ape.
It is admitted that the larger bones were separated
by a distance of forty-six feet. By way of meeting
this criticism, it is submitted that the distance is
by no means so great as to preclude the possibility
of the common and identical origin of the various
bones. Moreover it is at least curious that if two
skeletons are here represented, no further remains
should have been detected in the immediate vicinity.</p>
<p>The fact that the thigh-bone might easily have
passed as that of a man, while the skull-fragment is
so divergent from all modern forms as to be scarcely
human, is of great interest. The contrast between
the indications provided by the two bones was remarked
at once. Some writers, rejecting certain other
evidence on the point, then drew the inference that
the human thigh-bone had been evolved and had
arrived at the distinctive human condition in advance
of the skull. The importance of this conclusion lies
in the fact that the human thigh-bone bears indications
of an erect attitude, while the form of the
skull gives guidance as to the size of the brain, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span>
consequently to some extent provides a clue to the
mental endowment of the individual. Whether the
erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development
was first obtained by man has been debated for many
years. In this case, the evidence was taken to shew that
the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means
of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth
the upper limb was emancipated entirely from
its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation
followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from
their use as organs of prehension. Simultaneously
the mechanism whereby the head is attached to the
neck and trunk became profoundly modified. This
alteration gave to the brain an opportunity of growth
and increase previously denied, but now seized, with
the consequent accession of intellectual activity so
characteristic of the Hominidae.</p>
<p>The story thus expounded is attractive from
several points of view. But while possessing the
support of the Javan fossil remains, it is not confirmed
in the embryonic history of Man, for there
the growth of the brain is by far the most distinctive
feature. Nor did those who adopted this opinion
(in 1896), take into account all the characters of the
ancient human remains even then available. For
the evidence of those remains points to an order
exactly the reverse of that just stated, and it indicates
the early acquisition of a large and presumably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>
active brain. And now that additions have been lately
made to those older remains (other than the Javan
bones), the same ‘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.</p>
<p>But to return from this digression to the objections
against the <i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i>, it must now be
explained that the very contrast between the thigh-bone
and the skull-cap in respect of these inferences,
has been used as an argument against the association
of these bones as part of one skeleton.</p>
<p>The objection may be met in two ways at least.
For instance, the thigh-bone may yet possess characters
which lessen its resemblance to those of recent
men, but are not recognised on a superficial inspection.
Careful investigation of the thigh-bone seems to shew
that such indeed is the case (indeed the human
characters are by some absolutely denied). But
together with this result comes the discovery that the
characters of straightness and slenderness in the shaft
of the bone from which the inference as to the erect
attitude was largely drawn, do not give trustworthy
evidence upon this point. In fact, a human thigh-bone
may be much less straight and less slender than that
of arboreal animals such as the Gibbon, the Cebus
monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycticebus). The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>
famous Eppelsheim femur is straighter than, and as
slender as that of Pithecanthropus. It was regarded
at first as that of a young woman, but is now ascribed
to an anthropoid ape. And in fact, even if the skull-cap
and thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus should be
retained in association, it seems that the title
‘erectus’ is not fully justified.</p>
<p>Another method of rebutting the objection is
based on the suggestion that Pithecanthropus is not
a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to describe
an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in
palaeontology, and it was treated leniently by Huxley.
To my mind this position can be adopted without
materially depreciating the value of the evidence
yielded by the conjoint remains, provided only that
their original association be acknowledged. Should
this assumption be granted, the claims put forward
on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem
to be justified. On the other hand, should the
association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be rejected,
the former has not lost all claim to the same position.
For the most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>
of Strassburg, and the further elaboration of these
by Professor Berry<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> and Mr Cross<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> of Melbourne,
support Professor Dubois' view. And though the
objections may not have been finally disposed of,
a review of the literature called forth by Professor
Dubois' publications will shew a slight margin of
evidence for, rather than against his view.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p>
<h3><i>The Heidelberg or Mauer Jaw</i><a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>.</h3>
<p>Professor Dubois' Javanese researches were carried
out in the years 1891 and 1892. Fifteen years
separate the discovery of the <i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i>
from that of the second great find mentioned in the
introductory paragraph of this chapter. This period
was by no means barren in respect of other additions
to the list of human fossils. But the other results
(including even the finds at Taubach) are regarded
as of subsidiary importance, so that their consideration
will be deferred for the present. In 1907 a lower
jaw, known now as the Heidelberg or Mauer jaw, was
discovered by workmen in the sand-pit of Mauer near
Heidelberg.</p>
<p>The Mauer jaw is indeed a most remarkable
specimen. The first general outcome of an inspection
of the photographs or of the excellent casts (which may
now be seen in many museums) is a profound impression
of its enormous strength (Figs. 2, 13, and 15<i>c</i>). By every
part of the specimen save one, this impression is confirmed.
This massiveness, together with the complete
absence of any prominence at the chin, would have
caused great hesitation in regard to the pronouncement
of a decision as to the probable nature of the fossil.
The one paradoxical feature is the relatively small size
of the teeth. All of these have been preserved, though<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span>
on the left side the crowns of four have been removed
by accident in the process of clearing away some
adherent earth and pebbles. The net result shews
that the teeth are actually within the range of variation
provided by human beings of races still extant,
though commonly regarded as ‘primitive,’ if not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span>
pithecoid (such as the aboriginal race of Australia).
Yet these teeth are implanted in a jaw of such size
and strength as render difficult the reference of the
specimen to a human being.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_2.jpg" width="440" height="600"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_2.jpg" id="img_2.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 2. <i>A</i> outline tracing of a cast of the Mauer Jawbone. <i>B</i> a
similar tracing from an unusually large jaw of an ancient Briton.
(From specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
</div>
<p>The most striking features of the Mauer jaw have
been mentioned already. Before entering upon a
further discussion of its probable nature, it will be
well to note some of the other distinctive characters.
Thus the portion Fig. 2 (<i>a</i>) known technically as the
ascending ramus is of great size, and particularly wide,
surpassing all known human specimens in this respect.
The upper margin of this part is very slightly
excavated, a slight depression (<i>b</i>) replacing the very
definite ‘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 (<i>c</i>) and
the coronoid process (<i>d</i>) is therefore unusually small.
On the other hand, the lower margin of the bone is
undulating, so that it presents a hollow on each side,
as well as one near the middle line in front. The
two halves of the bone are definitely inclined to one
another and this convergence is faintly marked in the
two rows of teeth behind the canines. The latter
teeth do not project markedly above the level of
those adjacent to them. The incisor teeth are
remarkably curved in their long axes, with a convexity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>
in front. The prominences called ‘genial tubercles’
behind the chin are replaced by a shallow pit or
fossa.</p>
<p>In one sense the reception accorded by palaeontologists
to the fossil jaw of Mauer differs remarkably
from most of the comparable instances. That
difference consists in the comparative absence of
controversy excited by its discovery. This must not be
ascribed to any lack of ardour on the part of archaeologists.
More probable is it that with the lapse of
time, the acceptance of an evolutionary interpretation
of the origin of man has gained a wider circle of
adherents, so that the claims of even so sensational a
specimen as this, are sifted and investigated with a
judicial calm much more appropriate and certainly
more dignified than the fierce outbursts occasioned by
some of the earlier discoveries.</p>
<p>It remains to institute brief anatomical comparisons
between the Mauer jaw and those of the highest
apes on the one hand, and of the most primitive of
human beings on the other.</p>
<p>(<i>a</i>) Of the three larger anthropoid apes available
for comparison, it is hard to say which presents the
closest similarity. The Gibbons do not appear to
approach so nearly as these larger forms. Among
the latter, no small range of individual variations
occurs. My own comparisons shew that of the
material at my disposal the mandible of an Orang-utan<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span>
comes nearest to the Mauer jaw. But other
mandibles of the same kind of ape (Orang-utan) are
very different. The chief difficulty in assigning the
possessor of the Mauer jaw to a pithecoid stock
has been mentioned already. It consists in the
inadequate size of the teeth. In addition to this,
other evidence comes from the results of an examination
of the grinding surfaces (crowns) of the molar teeth.
These resemble teeth of the more primitive human
types rather than those of apes. Finally the convergence
of the two rows when traced towards the canine
or eye-tooth of each side, points in the same direction.</p>
<p>(<i>b</i>) If the apes be thus rejected, the next question
is, Would the Mauer jaw be appropriate to such a
cranium as that of Pithecanthropus? I believe an
affirmative answer is justifiable. It is true that an
excellent authority (Keith<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>) hesitates on the ground
that the mandible seems too massive for the skull,
though the same writer recognises that, in regard to
the teeth, the comparison is apt. This is a difficult
point. For instance the <i>H. moust. hauseri</i> (cf.
<a href="#Chapter_II">Chapter II</a>) has a mandible which is far ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>
(cf. p. 4) on the fact that the teeth of Pithecanthropus
when compared with the skull-cap are inadequately
small, if judged by the ape-standard of proportion.
The characters of the teeth, in so far as upper and
lower molars can be compared, present no obstacle
to such an association, and in fact provide some
additional evidence in its favour. The crucial point
seems therefore to be the massiveness of the jaw.
With regard to this, the following remarks may be
made. First, that the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus
is on all sides admitted to shew provision for powerful
jaw-muscles. And further, in respect of actual
measurements, the comparison of the transverse width
of the Javanese skull-cap with that of the Mauer jaw
is instructive. For the skull-cap measures 130 mm.
in extreme width, the jaw 130 mm. The association
of the two does not, in my opinion, make an extravagant
demand on the variability in size of either part.
A curious comparison may be instituted between the
Mauer jaw and the corresponding bone as represented
by Professor Manouvrier (cf. Dubois<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>, 1896) in an
attempted reconstruction of the whole skull of Pithecanthropus.
Professor Manouvrier's forecast of the
jaw differs from the Mauer specimen chiefly in regard
to the size of the teeth, and the stoutness of the
ascending ramus. The teeth are larger and the
ascending ramus is more slender in the reconstruction
than in the Mauer specimen.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p>
<p>(<i>c</i>) Passing from the consideration of Pithecanthropus
to that of human beings, the general results
of the comparisons that can be made will shew that
the gap separating the jaw of Mauer from all modern
human representatives is filled by human jaws of
great prehistoric antiquity.</p>
<p>The progress of an evolutionary development is
accordingly well-illustrated by these specimens. And
although <i>Homo heidelbergensis</i> is seen to be separated
from his modern successors by great differences
in form as well as a vast lapse of time, still the
intervening period does provide intermediate forms
to bridge the gulf. Not the least interesting of many
reflections conjured up by the Mauer jaw, is that this
extraordinary form should be met with in a latitude
so far north of that corresponding to the Javanese
discoveries. This difference, together with that of
longitude, suggests an immense range of distribution
of these ancestral types. Some of their successors
are considered in the next chapter.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="Chapter_II" id="Chapter_II">CHAPTER II</a><br />
<span style="font-size: 80%;">PALAEOLITHIC MAN</span></h2>
<p>The fossil remains described in the preceding
chapter possess good claims to that most interesting
position, viz. an intermediate one between Mankind
and the more highly-developed of the Apes.</p>
<p>From such remarkable claimants we turn to
consider fossil bones of undoubted human nature.
Of such examples some have been regarded as
differing from all other human types to such an
extent as to justify their segregation in a distinct
species or even genus. Yet even were such separation
fully justified, they are still indubitably human.</p>
<p>In the early phases of the study of prehistoric
archaeology, the distinction of a ‘stone age’ from
those of metals was soon realised. Credit is due
to the present Lord Avebury<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> for the subdivision of
that period into the earlier and later parts known as
the Palaeolithic and Neolithic stages. At first, those
subdivisions possessed no connotation of anatomical
or ethnical significance. But as research progressed,
the existence of a representative human type specially
characteristic of the palaeolithic period passed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span>
from the stage of surmise to that of certainty. Yet,
although characteristic, this type is not the only one
recognisable in those early days.</p>
<p>In the following pages, some account is given
of the most recent discoveries of human remains to
which Palaeolithic antiquity can undoubtedly be
assigned. The very numerous works relating to
prehistoric man are full of discussions of such
specimens as those found in the Neanderthal, at Spy,
Engis, Malarnaud, La Naulette or Denise.</p>
<p>That some of these examples are of great antiquity
is inferred from the circumstances under which they
were discovered. The evidence relates either to their
association with extinct animals such as the Mammoth,
or again the bones may have been found at great
depths from the surface, in strata judged to have
been undisturbed since the remains were deposited.
One of the earliest discoveries was that of the Engis
skull; the differences separating this skull from those
of modern Europeans are so extraordinarily slight
that doubt has been expressed as to the antiquity
assigned to the specimen, and indeed this doubt has
not been finally dispelled. The bones from Denise
(now rehabilitated in respect of their antiquity by
Professor Boule) present similar features. But on
the other hand the jaws found at La Naulette and
Malarnaud suggest the former existence of a lowlier
and more bestial form of humanity. Support is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>
provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but
in regard to the latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct
from presumption) is unfortunately lacking. Further
confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry skull
from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that
of the Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk
and Sir William Turner<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> as long ago as 1864, the
specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in that
of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the
geological or archaeological horizon is lamentably
defective. After a lapse of some twenty years, the
discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium,
undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of
Mammoth, threw a flood of light on the subject, and
enormously enhanced the significance of the earlier
discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a
human type, different from all other known inhabitants
of that continent, and presenting no small
resemblance to the lowliest modern representatives of
mankind, may be said to have been finally established
by the results of the excavations at Spy. Moreover
the differences thus recognised are such as to lend
strong support to the evolutionary view as to the
origin of the more recent human stocks from an
ancestral series including representatives of a simian
phase. Yet the co-existence of a higher type represented
by the Engis skull must not be overlooked,
nor indeed has this been the case. The significance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span>
of so remarkable a phenomenon is more fully
discussed in the sequel; but no detailed account of
the earlier discoveries need be given. A bibliography
is appended and here references (Hœrnes[44], 1908;
Schwalbe[55]) will be found to the more important
sources of information upon those specimens.</p>
<table id="p20" cellpadding="5" summary="references">
<tr>
<td class="tdc"><i>Locality</i></td>
<td class="td1"><i>Date</i></td>
<td class="td1"><i>Literary reference</i></td>
<td class="td1"><i>Synonyms</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Taubach</td>
<td class="td1">1895</td>
<td class="td2">Nehring<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Krapina</td>
<td class="td1">1899</td>
<td class="td2">Kramberger<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">S. Brélade</td>
<td class="td1">1910-11</td>
<td class="td2">Marett<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">La Chapelle aux Saints</td>
<td class="td1">1908</td>
<td class="td2">MarettBoule<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></td>
<td class="td2">“Corrèze”</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Le Moustier</td>
<td class="td1">1908</td>
<td class="td2">Klaatsch<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></td>
<td class="td2">“Homo mousterensis hauseri”</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">La Ferrassie</td>
<td class="td1">1909</td>
<td class="td2">Peyrony<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Pech de l'Aze</td>
<td class="td1">1909</td>
<td class="td2">Peyrony<a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Forbes Quarry</td>
<td class="td1">1848-1909</td>
<td class="td2">Sollas<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> Sera<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></td>
<td class="td2">“Gibraltar”</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Andalusia</td>
<td class="td1">1910</td>
<td class="td2">Verner<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Grotte des Enfants</td>
<td class="td1">1902-06</td>
<td class="td2">Verneau<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></td>
<td class="td2">“Grimaldi”</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Baradero</td>
<td class="td1">1887</td>
<td class="td2">(S. Roth) Lehmann-Nitsche (1907)<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></td>
<td class="td2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Monte Hermoso</td>
<td class="td1">?</td>
<td class="td2">Lehmann-Nitsche (1909)<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></td>
<td class="td2">Homo neogaeus”</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Combe Capelle</td>
<td class="td1">1909</td>
<td class="td2">Klaatsch<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></td>
<td class="td2">“Homo aurignacensis hauseri”</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Galley Hill</td>
<td class="td1">1895</td>
<td class="td2">Newton<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></td>
<td class="td2">“Homo fossilis”</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>In the present instance, an attempt will be made
to provide some account of the most recent advances
gained through the results of excavations carried out
in late years. And herein, prominence will be given
in the first place to such human remains as are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>
assignable to the lowlier human type represented
previously by the Spy skeletons. Following upon
these, come examples possessing other characters and
therefore not referable to the same type.</p>
<p>The discoveries are commonly designated by the
name of the locality in which they were made. Those
selected for particular mention are enumerated in
the list on p. 20.</p>
<h3><i>Taubach in Saxe-Weimar.</i></h3>
<p>Certain specimens discovered at Taubach and first
described in 1895 possess an importance second only
to that of the Mauer jaw and of the Javan bones
found by Professor Dubois. Indeed there would be
justification for associating the three localities in the
present series of descriptions. But upon consideration,
it was decided to bring the Taubach finds into the
present place and group. It may be added that they
are assigned to an epoch not very different from that
represented by the Mauer strata whence the mandible
was obtained.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_3.jpg" width="500" height="181"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_3.jpg" id="img_3.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 3. The grinding surface of the first right lower molar tooth
from Taubach. The letters denote several small prominences
called cusps.</p>
<p class="caption">Fig. 4. The grinding surface of the corresponding tooth (cf. Fig. 3)
of a Chimpanzee. (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are much enlarged.)</p>
</div>
<p>The actual material consists only of two human
teeth of the molar series. One is the first lower
‘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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>
The surface is more worn than is usual in modern
milk teeth of this kind. The second tooth (Fig. 3)
is the first lower ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>
forwards has been claimed as another simian
character. In these respects, the Taubach tooth is
among the most ape-like of human teeth (whether
prehistoric or recent) as yet recorded, and in my
opinion there is some difficulty in deciding whether
this is the tooth of a human being or of a
pithecoid human precursor. There is a very slight
tendency (Figs. 5, 6) to concrescence of the roots,
and these are curiously parallel in direction, when
viewed from the side. In the latter respect no
similarity to the teeth of apes can be recognised.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_5.jpg" width="500" height="437"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_5.jpg" id="img_5.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 5. Inner side of the Taubach tooth.]</p>
<p class="caption">Fig. 6. Outer side of the same. (From Nehring.)</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p>
<h3><i>Krapina in Croatia.</i></h3>
<p>Next in order to the discovery of human teeth at
Taubach, the results of excavations in a so-called
‘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.</p>
<p>Indeed this view is definitely adopted by Professor
Kramberger, and he makes the suggestion that
the remains include representatives of those who
practised as well as those who suffered from this
custom. Both young individuals and those of
mature age are represented, but very aged persons
have not been recognised.</p>
<p>Turning to the details of the actual bones, the
conclusion of outstanding interest is the recognition
of further instances of the type of the Neanderthal
and of Spy, the latter discovery being separated by
a lapse of twenty years and more from that at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>
Krapina. An attempt has been made to reconstruct
one skull, and the result is shewn in Fig. 7, which
provides a view of the specimen in profile. Viewed
from above, the chief character is the width of
the cranial portion, which exceeds very distinctly
in this respect the corresponding diameter in the
more classic examples from the Neanderthal and
Spy. It is very important to note that the brain-case
is thus shewn to be remarkably capacious,
and this is all the more remarkable since the limb-bones
do not denote a very great stature or bulk.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_7.jpg" width="500" height="332"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_7.jpg" id="img_7.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 7. Profile view of a reconstructed human skull from
Krapina. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)</p>
</div>
<p>Having recently examined the specimens now in
the Museum of Palaeontology at Agram in Croatia,
I venture to add some notes made on that occasion.
The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span>
femur are certainly most impressive. It is shewn
that early palaeolithic man presents examples of
skulls both of brachy-cephalic and dolicho-cephalic
proportions. Variations in the form and arrangement
of the facial bones also occur.</p>
<p>The form and proportions of the brain-case have
been noted already. The profile view (cf. <a href="#img_7.jpg">Fig. 7</a>)
shews the distinctive features of the brow region.
The brow-ridges are very large, but they do not
absolutely conform to the conditions presented by
the corresponding parts in the skulls of aboriginal
Australian or Tasmanian natives. The region of the
forehead above the brows is in some instances (but
not in all) flattened or retreating, and this feature
is indicated even in some small fragments by the
oblique direction of the lamina cribrosa of the
ethmoid bone.</p>
<p>Two types of upper jaw are distinguishable:
no specimen projects forwards so far as might be
expected, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards
(as in some crania of aboriginal Australians).
The facial surface of the jaw is not depressed to form
a ‘canine fossa.’ The nasal bones are flattened.</p>
<p>The mandibles present further remarkable characters.
By these again, two types have been rendered
capable of distinction. In their massiveness they are
unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In
absolute width one specimen actually surpasses the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>
Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival that bone in respect
of the great width found to characterise the ascending
ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the
chin is absent or at best feebly developed. In one
specimen the body of the jaw is bent at an angle
between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is
thus reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the
incisor teeth the conformation is peculiar, again
suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer
jaw, and differing from that found in more recent
human specimens.</p>
<p>The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made
in the following manner. The bone was placed on a
flat surface. The vertical height of the tooth-bearing
part was measured in two regions, (<i>a</i>) near the front,
(<i>b</i>) further back, and close to the second molar tooth
(cf. <a href="#img_2.jpg">Fig. 2</a><i>f</i>, <i>g</i>). In some of the bones these measurements
are nearly equal, but the hinder one is
always the less. In the instances in which the two
measurements approximate to one another, the
proportion is as 100:92. In other instances the
corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being
about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered
by Professor Kramberger to indicate a special variety
(krapinensis) of the Neanderthal or <i>Homo primigenius</i>
type. The second type is that of the Spy
mandible No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects
to the distinction, urging that the indices (92 and 86)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>
are not sufficiently contrasted. However this may be,
it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences.
Thus the curvature of the forehead is a variable
feature, some skulls having had foreheads much flatter
and more retreating than others. The limb bones
are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of
the arm-bones and thigh-bones are longer and more
slender than others.</p>
<p>How far these differences really penetrated and
whether the thesis of two types can be fully sustained,
does not appear to admit of a final answer.
The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the
distinction will be confirmed. But nevertheless I
am far from supporting in all respects the view of
Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe
the suggestion of realistic tableaux depicting the
murderous conflict of the two tribes at Krapina, the
butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene
of cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either
variety or type found at Krapina can be reasonably
identified with that of the Galley Hill skeleton. But
of these matters further discussion is reserved for
the sequel.</p>
<hr class="hr65" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_8.jpg" width="500" height="439"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_8.jpg" id="img_8.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 8. Tracings (from skiagrams) of various molar teeth. The
specimen <i>K.o.</i> from Krapina shews the conjoined roots characteristic
of teeth found at Krapina, and in Jersey at S. Brélade's Bay.
The large pulp-cavity of the Krapina teeth should be noted. <i>K.o.</i>,
<i>K.C.</i>, <i>K.E.</i>, <i>K.G.</i>, from Krapina; <i>H.</i> Mauer. (From Kramberger.)</p>
</div>
<p>This brief sketch of the cranial characters of the
Krapina remains must be supplemented by a note<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>
on the teeth. Great numbers were found, and some
of them are of enormous dimensions, surpassing
those of the Mauer jaw. But some of the molar
teeth are further distinguished in a very remarkable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>
way, for the roots supporting the crown of the tooth
are conjoined or fused: they are not distinct or
divergent as is usual. The contrast thus provided
by these anomalous teeth is well illustrated in the
accompanying figure (8, <i>Ko</i>). Now such fusion of
roots is not absolutely unknown at the present
day; but the third molar or wisdom tooth is most
frequently affected. The occurrence is extremely
unusual in the other molar teeth of modern men.
Yet among the Krapina teeth, such fusion is striking
both in its degree and in its frequency. So
marked a characteristic has attracted much attention.
Professor Kramberger holds the view that it constituted
a feature of adaptation peculiar to the
Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this,
Professor Adloff holds that the character is so
definite and marked as to enter into the category
of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion
of these views was carried on somewhat
warmly, but yet to some extent fruitlessly so long as
the only known examples were those from Krapina.
Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on
the other side may be ranged the support of
Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very
substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor
Adloff and his supporters. For in a cave near
S. Brélade's Bay in Jersey, the explorations of
Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span>
brought to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very
similar form. They are said indeed by Dr Keith to
be precisely comparable to those from Krapina. The
conjoined roots of such teeth should be regarded
therefore as more than a peculiarity of the Palaeolithic
men of Croatia, and rather as a very definite
means of assigning to a particular Palaeolithic epoch
any other instances of a similar nature. Space will
not admit of more than a simple record of two
other features of the Krapina teeth. They are
(<i>a</i>) the curvature of the canine teeth and (<i>b</i>) the
remarkable size and extent of the ‘pulp-cavity’
(cf. <a href="#img_8.jpg">Fig. 8</a>, <i>Ko</i>) of the molar teeth. In entering
upon so protracted a discussion of this part of the
evidence, the excuse is proffered that, as may be
noted in the instances at Trinil and Taubach, teeth
are remarkably well-fitted for preservation in the
fossil state, since they may be preserved in circumstances
leading to the complete destruction of
other parts of the skeleton.</p>
<p>The limb bones of the Krapina skeletons are
chiefly remarkable for the variety they present.
Some are short and stout, of almost pygmy proportions:
others are long and slender, inappropriate
in these respects to the massive skull fragments
which predominate. The distinction of two human
types upon evidence furnished by the limb bones has
already been mentioned.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span></p>
<h3><i>S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey.</i></h3>
<p>A cave in this locality has been explored during
the last two years (1910, 1911). Human remains are
represented by the teeth already mentioned on account
of their resemblance to those found at Krapina. The
resemblance depends primarily upon the curious
fusion of the roots in the molar teeth. Moreover, the
circumference of the combined and thickened roots is
so great as to confer a most remarkable ‘columnar’
appearance on the affected teeth (cf. <a href="#img_8.jpg">fig. 8</a>, <i>K.o.</i>). The
teeth from Krapina and Jersey while thus associated
must be contrasted with some specimens which they
resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth
in the Mauer jaw have been described as similar to
those from Krapina, but I cannot confirm this from
Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (<i>H</i>) is
a fair representation. The teeth of the Forbes Quarry
and Le Moustier specimens do not conform to the
precise requirements of the test. The Spy teeth are
said to have three distinct roots save in two cases,
where the numbers are four and two respectively. The
test of combined molar roots therefore provides
a means of subdividing a group of examples otherwise
similar, rather than a mark of recognition
applicable to all alike.</p>
<p>The S. Brélade teeth also resemble those from
Krapina in the proportions of their crowns and the
unusually large size of the pulp-cavity. The latter
character may prove more important than the fusion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span>
of the roots. But the evidence of their surroundings
assigns the teeth from Jersey to an epoch less ancient
than that of the Krapina men.</p>
<h3><i>La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze).</i></h3>
<p>The human skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints
holds a very distinguished position among its congeners.
In the first place, the discovery was
not haphazard, but made by two very competent
observers during their excavations. Again, the
remains comprise not only the nearly intact brain-case,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>
but much of the facial part of the skull,
together with the lower jaw and many bones of the
trunk and limbs. The individual was a male of
mature age, but not senile (Manouvrier). For these
reasons, the value of this skeleton in evidence is
singularly great.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_9.jpg" width="500" height="483"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_9.jpg" id="img_9.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 9. Profile view of the skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints
(Corrèze). (From Birkner, after Boule.)</p>
</div>
<p>Speaking generally, the specimen is found to
resemble very closely the Neanderthal skeleton in
practically every structure and feature common to
the two individuals. This correspondence is confirmatory
therefore of the view which assigns great
antiquity to the Neanderthal man, and in addition
to this, further support is given to the recognition
of these examples (together with those from Spy and
Krapina) as representatives of a widely distributed
type. It is increasingly difficult to claim them as
individual variations which have been preserved
fortuitously.</p>
<p>Beyond these inferences, the skeleton from La
Chapelle adds very greatly to the sum total of our
knowledge of the structural details of these skeletons.
For here the facial bones are well preserved. Before
proceeding to their consideration reference should
be made to the side view of the skull (Fig. 9), as
well as to the tracings of the brain-case brought
into comparison with those provided by the Neanderthal
and Spy crania. In the case of one illustration
of those tracings (Fig. 10) it must be remarked<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a><br /><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span>
that objection is taken by Professor Klaatsch to
the base-line selected, though in this particular
instance, that objection has less weight than in
others.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_10.jpg" width="500" height="283"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_10.jpg" id="img_10.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 10. Outline tracings (cf. <a href="#img_1.jpg">Fig. 1</a>) of various human skulls of the
Palaeolithic Age. (From Boule.)</p>
</div>
<p>Turning to the facial parts of the skull, the brows
will be seen to overhang the face less than in many
crania of aboriginal Australians. Prognathism, <i>i.e.</i>
projection of the jaws (Fig. 11), though distinct, is less
pronounced than might be expected. Hereby the
reconstruction of the facial parts of the Neanderthal
skull, as prepared by Professor Klaatsch, is shewn
to be much exaggerated. The skeleton of the
nose reveals some simian traits, and on either
side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is shallow or
non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>
this character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet
it is quite uncommon in this degree among modern
European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida Ruggeri
to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The
reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large
and in the incisor region (<i>i.e.</i> in front) are much curved
downwards in the direction of their length. But this,
though probably correct, is yet a matter of inference,
for only a couple of teeth (the second premolars
of the left side) were found <i>in situ</i>. And so far no
detailed description of these teeth has appeared.
The mandible is of extraordinary dimensions; very
widely separated ‘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.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_11.jpg" width="600" height="226"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_11.jpg" id="img_11.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 11. Contours of two skulls, <i>A</i> of a New Guinea man; <i>B</i> of an
European woman. The angle <i>B.PR.P</i> measures the degree of
prognathism, and in this respect, the two specimens are strongly
contrasted. (From specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
</div>
<p>Such are the more easily recognisable features of
the skull. It will be understood that many more
details remain for discussion. But within the allotted
space, two only can be dealt with. The capacity of
the brain-case is surprisingly large, for it is estimated
at 1600 cubic centimetres: from this figure (which
will be the subject of further discussion in the sequel)
it appears that the man of La Chapelle was amply
provided with cerebral material for all ordinary needs
as judged even by modern standards. In the second
place, MM. Boule and Anthony, not content with a
mere estimate of capacity, have published an elaborate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span>
account of the form of the brain as revealed by a cast
of the interior of the brain-case. As the main result
of their investigations, they are enabled to record a list
of characters indicative of a comparatively lowly status
as regards the form of the brain, although in actual
size it leaves little to be desired.</p>
<p>The principal points of interest in the remainder
of the skeleton refer in the first instance to the
estimate of stature and the evidence provided as to
the natural pose and attitude of the individual. Using
Professor Pearson's table, I estimate the stature as
being from 1600 to 1620 mm. (5ft. 3in. or 5ft. 4in.), a
result almost identical with the estimate given for the
Neanderthal man. In both, the limb bones are
relatively thick and massive, and by the curvature of
the thigh-bones and of the upper parts of the shin-bones,
a suggestion is given of the peculiar gait
described by Professor Manouvrier as ‘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.</p>
<p>The bones of the foot are not lacking in interest,
and, in particular, that called astragalus is provided
with an unusually extensive joint-surface on its outer
aspect. In this respect it becomes liable to comparison
with the corresponding bone in the feet of
climbing animals, whether simian or other.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span></p>
<p>That these features of the bone in question are
not peculiar to the skeleton from La Chapelle, is
shewn by their occurrence in bones of corresponding
antiquity from La Quina (Martin, 1911) and (it is
also said) from La Ferrassie (Boule, L'Anthropologie,
Mai-Juin, 1911).</p>
<h3><i>Homo mousterensis hauseri</i> (<i>Dordogne</i>)</h3>
<p>This skeleton was discovered in the lower rock-shelter
of Le Moustier (Dordogne, France) in the
course of excavations carried out by Professor
Hauser (of Swiss nationality) during the year 1908.
The final removal of the bones was conducted in
the presence of a number of German archaeologists
expressly invited to attend. The omission to
inform or invite any French archaeologists, and the
immediate removal of the bones to Breslau, are
regrettable incidents which cast a shadow quite
unnecessarily on an event of great archaeological
interest. By a curious coincidence this took place a
few days after the discovery of the human skeleton of
La Chapelle (<i>v. supra</i>). The two finds are very
fortunately complementary to each other in several
respects, for the Dordogne skeleton is that of a youth,
whereas the individual of La Chapelle was fully
mature. In their main characters, the two skeletons
are very similar, so that in the present account it will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span>
be necessary only to mention the more important
features revealed by the study of the Dordogne
specimen. Outline drawings of the two skulls are
compared with the corresponding contour of the
Neanderthal calvaria by Klaatsch.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_12.jpg" width="500" height="555"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_12.jpg" id="img_12.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 12. Outline tracing of a cast of the Moustier skull (Dordogne).
(From a specimen in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span></p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_13.jpg" width="450" height="314"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_13.jpg" id="img_13.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 13. Tracings from casts (in the Cambridge Museum) of the
jaw-bone from Mauer and of that of the Moustier skeleton.
The Mauer jaw is indicated by the continuous line.</p>
</div>
<p>In the Dordogne youth the bones were far more
fragile than in the older man from La Chapelle.
Nevertheless, photographs taken while the bones
were still <i>in situ</i> but uncovered, provide a means of
realising many features of interest. Moreover although
the face in particular was greatly damaged, yet the
teeth are perfectly preserved, and were replaced in
the reconstructed skull of which a representation
is shewn in Fig. 12. This reconstruction cannot
however be described as a happy result of the
great labour bestowed upon it. In particular it is
almost certain that the skull is now more prognathous
than in its natural state. Apart from such drawbacks
the value of the specimen is very great, and this is
especially the case in regard to the teeth and the
lower jaw. The former are remarkably large, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span>
they agree herein with the teeth from Krapina
(though their roots are distinct and not conjoined as
in the Krapina examples). In respect of size, the
teeth of the Dordogne individual surpass those of the
Mauer jaw, but the first lower molar has proportions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span>
similar to the corresponding tooth of that specimen.
But, large as they are, the lower teeth are implanted
in a mandible falling far short of the Mauer jaw in
respect of size and weight (Fig. 13). In fact one of
the great characteristics of the Dordogne skeleton
is the inadequacy of the mandible when compared
to the remainder of the skull, even though allowance
is made for the youth of the individual. Were it
not that the facts are beyond dispute, it is difficult to
imagine that such a mandible could be associated
with so large and capacious a cranium. And yet the
jaw is not devoid of points in which it resembles
the Mauer bone, in spite of its much smaller bulk.
Thus the chin is defective, the lower border undulating,
and the ascending branch is wide in proportion to its
height. A good idea of these features is provided by
the illustration of the side-view (cf. <a href="#img_14.jpg">Fig. 14</a>) given by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>
Professor Frizzi. Seen from above, the contour is
in close agreement with that of several well-known
examples, such as the jaws from Spy (cf. <a href="#img_15.jpg">Fig. 15</a>)
and Krapina.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_14.jpg" width="600" height="481"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_14.jpg" id="img_14.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 14. Outline tracings of jaw-bones. In the lower row, sections
are represented as made vertically in the median plane through
the chin, which is either receding or prominent. In this series,
the numbers refer to those given in the upper set. (From Frizzi.)</p>
</div>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_15.jpg" width="500" height="174"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_15.jpg" id="img_15.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 15. Outline tracings of jaw-bones viewed from above. <i>A</i> an
ancient Briton (cf. <a href="#img_2.jpg">Fig. 2</a>, <i>B</i>). <i>B</i> Moustier. <i>C</i> Mauer. (<i>B</i> and
<i>C</i> are from casts in the Cambridge Museum.)</p>
</div>
<p>The limb bones agree in general appearance with
those of the skeletons of the Neanderthal and La
Chapelle. Though absolutely smaller than in those
examples, they are yet similar in regard to their
stoutness. The femur is short and curved, and the
articular ends are disproportionately large as judged
by modern standards. The tibia is prismatic, resembling
herein the corresponding bone in the Spy
skeleton. It is not flattened or sabre-like, as in certain
other prehistoric skeletons.</p>
<p>Another point of interest derived from the study
of the limb bones is the stature they indicate.
Having regard to all the bones available, a mean
value of about 1500 mm. (about 4 ft. 11 in.) is thus
inferred. Yet the youth was certainly 16 years
of age and might have been as much as 19 years.
The comparison of stature with that of the other
examples described is given in a later chapter.
At present, it is important to remark that in
view of this determination (of 4 ft. 11 in.) and even
when allowance is made for further growth in stature
the large size of the skull must be regarded as very
extraordinary indeed. A similar remark applies to
the estimate of the capacity of the brain-case. A<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>
moderate estimate gives 1600 c.c. as the capacity of
the brain-case (practically identical with that of the
La Chapelle skull). In modern Europeans of about
5 ft. 6 in., this high figure would not cause surprise.
In a modern European of the same stature as the
Dordogne man (4 ft. 11 in.), so capacious a brain-case
would be regarded if not as a pathological anomaly,
yet certainly as the extreme upper limit of normal
variation. Without insisting further on this paradoxical
result (which is partly due to defective
observations), it will suffice to remark that early
Palaeolithic man was furnished with a very adequate
quantity of brain-material, whatever its quality may
have been. In regard to the amount, no symptom or
sign of an inferior evolutionary status can be detected.</p>
<h3><i>La Ferrassie</i> (<i>Dordogne, France</i>).</h3>
<p>This discovery was made in a rock-shelter during
its excavation in the autumn of 1909 by M. Peyrony.
A human skeleton was found in the floor of the
grotto, and below strata characterised by Mousterian
implements. The bones were excessively
fragile, and though the greatest care was taken in
their removal, the skull on arrival at Paris was in a
condition described by Professor Boule (L'Anthropologie,
1911, p. 118) as ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>
while the skeleton lay <i>in situ</i> after its exposure, it is
difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion as to its
characters. But in regard to these, some resemblance
at least (in the jaws) to the Neanderthal type can be
detected.</p>
<p>M. Peyrony found also in the same year and in
the same region (at Le Pech de l'Aze) the cranium
of a child, assignable to the same epoch as the
skeleton of La Ferrassie. But so far no further
details have been published.</p>
<h3><i>Forbes Quarry</i> (<i>Gibraltar</i>).</h3>
<p>The human skull thus designated was found in
the year 1848. It was, so to speak, rediscovered by
Messrs Busk and Falconer. The former authority
described the specimen in 1864, but this description
is only known from an abstract in the Reports
of the British Association. Broca published an
account of the osteological characters a few years
later. After 1882, the skull again fell into obscurity
for some twenty years: thereafter it attracted the
attention of Dr Macnamara, Professor Schwalbe, and
above all of Professor Sollas, who published the first
detailed and critical account in 1907. This has
stimulated yet other researches, particularly those of
Professor Sera (of Florence) in 1909, and the literature
thus growing up bids fair to rival that of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span>
Neanderthal skeleton. A most important feature of
the specimen consists in the fact that the bones
of the face have remained intact and in connection
with the skull. But the mandible is wanting, and
the molar teeth of the upper set are absent.</p>
<p>As may be gathered from the tracing published
by Dr Sera (cf. <a href="#img_16.jpg">Fig. 16</a>) the upper part of the brain-case
is imperfect. Nevertheless the contour has
been restored, and the Neanderthal-like features of
distinct brow-ridges, followed by a low flattened
cranial curve, are recognisable at once. The facial
profile is almost complete, and in this respect the
Forbes Quarry skull stood alone until the discovery
of the specimen from La Chapelle. Since that
incident, this distinction is not absolute, but the
Forbes Quarry skull is still unique amidst the other
fossils in respect of the bones forming what is called
the cranial base. In no other specimen hitherto
found, are these bones so complete, or so well preserved
in their natural position.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_16.jpg" width="600" height="441"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_16.jpg" id="img_16.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 16. Outline tracing and sectional view of the Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull.
The various angles are used for comparative purposes. (From Sera.)</p>
</div>
<p>The Forbes Quarry skull is clearly of Neanderthaloid
type as regards the formation of the brain-case;
in respect of the face it resembles in general the skull
from La Chapelle. But in respect of the estimated
capacity of the brain-case (estimated at 1100 c.c.),
the Forbes Quarry skull falls far short of both those
other examples. Moreover the cranial base assigns
to it an extremely lowly position. The individual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a><br /><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span>
is supposed by some to have been of the female sex,
but there is no great certainty about this surmise.
The enormous size of the eye-cavities and of the
opening of the nose confer a very peculiar appearance
upon the face, and are best seen in the full-face view.
Some other features of the skull will be considered
in the concluding chapter, when its relation to skulls
of the Neanderthal type will be discussed in detail.</p>
<h3><i>Andalusia, Spain.</i></h3>
<p>In 1910, Colonel Willoughby Verner discovered
several fragments of a human skeleton in a cave in
the Serranía de Ronda. These fragments have been
presented to the Hunterian Museum. They seem to
be absolutely mineralised. Though imperfect, they
indicate that their possessor was adult and of pygmy
stature. The thigh-bone in particular is of interest, for
an upper fragment presents a curious conformation of
the rounded prominence called the greater trochanter.
In this feature, and in regard to the small size of the
head of the bone, the femur is found to differ from
most other ancient fossil thigh-bones, and from those
of modern human beings, with the exception of some
pygmy types, viz. the dwarf-like cave-dwellers of
Aurignac (compared by Pruner-Bey in 1868 to the
Bushmen), the aborigines of the Andaman islands,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span>
and the aboriginal Bushmen of South Africa. A full
description of the bones has not been published, but
will probably appear very shortly.</p>
<h3><i>Grimaldi</i> (<i>Mentone Caves</i>).</h3>
<p>Among the numerous human skeletons yielded by
the caves of Mentone, two were discovered at a great
depth in a cave known as the ‘Grotte des Enfants.’
The excavations were set on foot by the Prince of
Monaco, and these particular skeletons have been
designated the ‘Grimaldi’ remains.</p>
<p>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. <a href="#img_17.jpg">Fig. 17</a>),
and an aged woman. The late Professor Gaudry
examined the jaw of the male skeleton. He noted the
large dimensions of the teeth, the prognathism, the
feeble development of the chin, and upon such
grounds pointed out the similarity of this jaw to
those of aboriginal natives of Australia. Some years
later Dr Verneau, in describing the same remains,
based a claim to (African) negroid affinity on those
characters, adding thereto evidence drawn from a
study of the limb bones. In both male and female
alike, the lower limbs are long and slender, while the
forearm and shin-bones are relatively long when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>
compared respectively with the arm and the thigh-bones.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_17.jpg" width="500" height="519"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_17.jpg" id="img_17.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 17. Profile view of young male skull of the type designated
that of ‘Grimaldi,’ and alleged to present ‘negroid’ features.
<i>Locality.</i> Deeper strata in the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone.
(From Birkner, after Verneau, modified.)</p>
</div>
<p>From a review of the evidence it seems that the
term ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span>
Europeans undoubtedly may possess any of the
osteological characters claimed as ‘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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<hr class="hr65" />
<p><i>South America.</i> With the exception of Pithecanthropus,
all the discoveries mentioned in the
foregoing paragraphs were made in Europe. From
other parts of the world, actual human remains
referable to earlier geological epochs are scanty save
in South America. The discoveries made in this
part of the New World have been described at great
length. In many instances, claims to extraordinary<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span>
antiquity have been made on their behalf. It is
necessary therefore to examine the credentials of
such specimens. Upon an examination of the evidence,
I have come to the conclusion that two instances
only deserve serious attention and criticism.</p>
<h3><i>Baradero.</i></h3>
<p>Fragmentary remains of a human skeleton: the
mandible is the best preserved portion; unfortunately
the front part has been broken off so that no
conclusion can be formed as to the characters of
the chin. Otherwise in regard to its proportions,
some resemblance is found with the mandible of the
Spy skull (No. 1). More important and definite is
the direction of the grinding surfaces of the molar
teeth. In the lower jaw, this surface is said to look
forwards. The interest of this observation consists
in the fact that the tooth from Taubach presents the
same feature, which is unusual.</p>
<p>Beyond these, the skeleton from the löss of
Baradero presents no distinctive features save the
remarkable length of the upper limbs.</p>
<h3><i>Monte Hermoso.</i></h3>
<p>From this region two bones were obtained at
different dates. These are an atlas vertebra (the
vertebra next to the skull) and a thigh-bone. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span>
latter is of less than pygmy dimensions. Both are
from fully adult skeletons.</p>
<p>An attempt has been made to reconstruct an
individual (the Tetraprothomo of Ameghino) to which
the two bones should be referred. It will be noticed
that the circumstances bear some, although a very
faint, analogy to those in which the remains of
Pithecanthropus were found. The results are however
extraordinarily different. Professor Branco has
ably shewn that in the case of the bones from
Monte Hermoso, the association in one and the
same skeleton would provide so large a skull in
proportion to the rest of the body, that the result
becomes not only improbable, but impossible. It is
therefore necessary to treat the bones separately. If
this is done, there is no reason to regard the thigh-bone
as other than that of a large monkey of one of
the varieties known to have inhabited South America
in prehistoric as well as in recent times.</p>
<p>The vertebra is more interesting. It is small but
thick and strong in a degree out of proportion to
its linear dimensions. Professor Lehmann-Nitsche
supposes that it may have formed part of a skeleton
like that of Pithecanthropus, that is to say that it is
not part of a pygmy skeleton. On the other hand,
Dr Rivet considers that the Monte Hermoso vertebra
could be matched exactly by several specimens in the
large collection of exotic human skeletons in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span>
National Museum, Paris. Be this as it may, there
is no doubt that the atlas vertebra in question constitutes
the most interesting discovery of its kind
made so far in South America. It is important to
notice that time after time the attempts made to
demonstrate the early origin of Man in the American
Continent have resulted in failure, which in some
instances has been regrettably ignominious.</p>
<h3><i>Combe Capelle</i> (<i>H. aurignacensis hauseri</i>).</h3>
<p>Returning to Europe, it is to be noted that
in a rock-shelter near Combe-Capelle (Dordogne),
the excavations of Dr Hauser led to the discovery in
1909 of an entire human skeleton of the male sex.
The interment (for such it was) had taken place
in the Aurignacian period. The skeleton presents a
very striking appearance. In stature, no important
divergence from the Neanderthal type can be noted.
But the more vertical forehead, more boldly-curved
arc of the brain-case, the diminished brow-ridges,
large mastoid processes and distinct canine fossae
provide a complete contrast between the Aurignac
man and those of the Neanderthal group. Moreover
the Aurignac jaw has a slight projection at the chin,
where an ‘internal process’ is now distinct. The
brain-case has dolicho-cephalic proportions in a
marked degree. The limb bones are straight and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span>
slender, and not so much enlarged in the regions of
the several joints.</p>
<p>The Aurignac skeleton of Combe Capelle has
been associated with several others by Professor
Klaatsch. By some authorities they are considered
as transitional forms bridging the gap between the
early Palaeolithic types and those of the existing
Hominidae. But Professor Klaatsch evidently regards
them as intruders and invaders of the territory
previously occupied by the more lowly Neanderthaloid
type.</p>
<h3><i>Galley Hill.</i></h3>
<p>Among the skeletons which have been thus
associated with the Aurignac man, are three which
have for many years attracted the attention of
anthropologists. For this reason, no detailed account
of their characters will be given here. Of the
three instances referred to, two are the fragmentary
skull-caps of the skeletons found at Brüx and at
Brünn in Moravia. The latter specimen is generally
described as Brünn (91) to distinguish it from Brünn
(85), a different and earlier find of less interest.</p>
<p>It will suffice to mention here that both specimens
agree in possessing what may be described as a
distinctly mitigated form of the characters so strongly
developed in the Neanderthal skull and its allies.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>
The Aurignac and Brüx skulls are distinctly longer
and narrower than that of Brünn (91). The limb
bones are not available for the purposes of evidence.</p>
<p>The third specimen possesses a very much greater
interest. It is known as the Galley Hill skeleton
from the site of its discovery near Northfleet in Kent.
Since it was first described by Mr E. T. Newton
(in 1895), much literature has accumulated about the
difficult problems presented by the Galley Hill
skeleton. By some authors it is regarded as clearly
associated with the other examples just mentioned
(Brüx, Brünn, and Aurignac). Others reject its claims
to high antiquity; of the latter some are courteous,
others are scornful, but all are absolutely decided.
Having investigated the literature as well as I could,
and having seen the cranium, I decided that the
claims to great antiquity made on its behalf do really
justify its inclusion. But I am quite convinced
that the skeleton will give no more than very general
indications. Thus the bones are fragile in the
extreme. And besides this, the skull is so contorted
that measurements made in the usual way must be
extraordinarily misleading and the possible error is
too great to be successfully allowed for (cf. <a href="#img_18.jpg">Fig. 18</a>).</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_18.jpg" width="401" height="600"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_18.jpg" id="img_18.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 18. Outline tracing of the Galley Hill skull, viewed
from above. (From Klaatsch.)</p>
<table summary="legend">
<tr>
<td class="tdl">--- Galley Hill.</td>
<td class="tdl">··· Neanderthal.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl"><b>---</b> Ancient German.</td>
<td class="tdl"><b>···</b> Modern South German.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p>To insist upon these points is the more important
since nowadays various indices based on such
measurements of the Galley Hill cranium will be
found tabulated with data yielded by other skulls,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a><br /><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>
and yet no mark of qualification distinguishes the
former figures.</p>
<p>The description of the skeleton may be given in
a very few words. In the great majority of its characters,
it is not seen to differ from modern human
beings (though the stature is small, viz. 1600 mm.,
5 ft. 3 in.). And so far as I am able to judge, the
characters claimed as distinctive (separating the
Galley Hill skull from modern dolichocephalic European
skulls) are based upon observations containing a
very large possibility of error.</p>
<p>Having regard to such statements, the inference
is that the Galley Hill skull does not in fact differ
essentially from its modern European counterparts.
Similar conclusions have been formed in regard to
the other parts of this skeleton. It is important to
note that the specimen does not lose its interest on
this account.</p>
<h3><i>Summary.</i></h3>
<p>From the foregoing descriptions, it follows that
of the most ancient remains considered, at least three
divisions can be recognised. In the first place, come
the examples described as Pithecanthropus and <i>Homo
heidelbergensis</i> (Mauer). In the second category
come instances as to which no reasonable doubt as
to their definitely human characters now exists (save<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>
possibly in the case of the Taubach tooth and the
Hermoso atlas). Of the members of this second series,
two sub-divisions here designated (<i>A</i>) and (<i>B</i>) can be
demonstrated; these with the first examples complete
the threefold grouping set out in the table following,
with which Table A, p. 85, should be compared.</p>
<table cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" summary="subdivision">
<tr>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3"><span class="smcap">Group I.</span><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Early ancestral forms.</span><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis.</i></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3"><span class="smcap">Group II.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl"><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Subdivision A.</i></span><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Homo primigenius.</i></span></td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="2"><i>Ex. gr. La Chapelle.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl" valign="middle" rowspan="2"><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Subdivision B.</i></span><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>H. recens;</i> with varieties</span></td>
<td class="tdl" valign="middle" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">H. fossilis. <i>Ex. gr. Galley Hill.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">H. sapiens.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Taking the first group (Pithecanthropus and
<i>Homo heidelbergensis</i>) it is to be noticed that close
correlation is quite possible. Besides this, evidence
exists in each case to the effect that far-distant
human ancestors are hereby revealed to their modern
representatives. Of their physical characters, distinct
indications are given of the possession of a small
brain in a flattened brain-case associated with powerful
jaws; the lower part of the face being distinguished
by the absence of any projection of the chin. The
teeth indicate with some degree of probability that
their diet was of a mixed nature, resembling in this
respect the condition of many modern savage tribes.
Beyond this, the evidence is weak and indefinite. It
is highly probable that these men were not arboreal:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>
though whether they habitually assumed the distinctive
erect attitude is a point still in doubt. And yet again,
while the indications are not clear, it is probable that
in stature they were comparable, if not superior, to the
average man of to-day.</p>
<p>Passing from this division to the second, a region
of much greater certainty is entered. Of the second
group, one subdivision (<i>A</i>) retains certain characters
of the earlier forms. Thus the massive continuous
brow-ridge persists, as do also the flattened brain-case
with a large mass of jaw-muscle, and a ponderous
chinless lower jaw. For the rest, the points of
contrast are much more prominent than those of
similarity. The brain has increased in size. This
increase is very considerable in absolute amount.
But relatively also to the size of the possessor, the
increase in brain-material is even more striking, for
the stature and consequently bulk and weight are
less. The thigh-bone offers important points of
difference, the earlier long slender form (in <i>P. erectus</i>)
being now replaced by a shorter, curved, thick substitute.
If there has been inheritance here, marked
and aberrant variation is also observed.</p>
<p>The second subdivision (<i>B</i>) remains for consideration.
Here the stature has not appreciably changed.
The limb bones are long, slender, and less curved
than those of the other associated human beings (<i>A</i>),
and herein the earliest type is suggested once more.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>
But the differences occur now in the skull. The
brain is as large as in the other subdivision (<i>A</i>) and
in modern men. The brain-case is becoming elevated:
the brow-ridges are undergoing reduction; this
process, commencing at their outer ends, expresses
to some extent the degree of reduction in the muscles
and bone of the lower jaw. The teeth are smaller
and the chin becomes more prominent. The distinction
from modern types of humanity is often impossible.</p>
<p>In the next chapter some account is given of the
circumstances under which the bones were discovered,
and of the nature of their surroundings.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER III<br />
<span style="font-size: 80%;">ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS AND CAVES</span></h2>
<p>The principal characters of the oldest known
human remains having been thus set forth, the
circumstances of their surroundings next demand
attention. A brief indication of these will be given
with the aid of the illustrations provided in the
original memoirs in each case, and the order of
descriptions followed in the preceding chapter will
be observed.</p>
<p><i>Pithecanthropus.</i> The remains of Pithecanthropus
were recovered from an alluvial deposit at Trinil.
A section of this is shewn in Fig. 19. An idea may
thus be gained of the very considerable amount of
superincumbent materials. The associated fauna
cannot be compared directly to that of any Western
European locality. But in comparison with the
modern fauna of Java, the strata in which the
Pithecanthropus was found shew a predominance
of extinct species, though not of genera. Elephants
and hippopotami were present: they point to a close
relation between the fauna of Trinil and that of
certain Siwalik strata in India, referred to a late<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span>
Pliocene age. The difference of opinion upon this
point has been mentioned in the preceding chapter:
here it will suffice to repeat that a final conclusion
does not appear to have been reached, and that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>
experts who have examined the strata in situ still
differ from each other.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_19.jpg" width="500" height="481"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_19.jpg" id="img_19.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. <i>A</i> vegetable soil.
<i>B</i> Sand-rock. <i>C</i> Lapilli-rock. <i>D</i> Level at which the bones
were found. <i>E</i> Conglomerate. <i>F</i> Clay. <i>H</i> Rainy-season level
of river. <i>I</i> Dry-season level of river. (From Dubois.)</p>
</div>
<p><i>Mauer.</i> Impressed by the similarity of the conditions
at Mauer to those of the fossiliferous tufa-beds
near Taubach and Weimar, Dr Schoetensack had
anticipated the possibility of obtaining valuable fossil
relics from the former locality. For some twenty years,
Dr Schoetensack kept in touch with the workmen of
Mauer, and thus when the jawbone was found, he
was summoned at once. Even so, the jaw had been
removed from its resting-place, and broken in two
fragments. Yet there is no doubt as to the exact
position in which it was found. Sand and löss
(a fine earthy deposit) had accumulated above it
to a thickness of seventy feet. The nature of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span>
surroundings may be estimated by reference to the
illustration (Fig. 20) reproducing Dr Schoetensack's
photograph of the sand-pit. The sands which contained
the mandible represent an alluvial deposit,
and so far resemble the Trinil beds in Java. The
attempt to institute an exact comparison would be
unprofitable, but on the whole it would seem that,
of the two, the Mauer sands represent the later stage.
The fauna associated with the Mauer jaw includes
such forms as <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros etruscus</i>,
<i>Ursus arvernensis</i>, <i>U. deningeri</i> (an ancestral form
of <i>U. spelaeus</i>), together with a species of horse
intermediate between <i>Equus stenonis</i>, and the fossil
horse found at Taubach. The cave-lion, bison, and
various deer have also been recognised.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_20.jpg" width="500" height="303"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_20.jpg" id="img_20.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. X (in white) position of jawbone
when found. (From Birkner, after Schoetensack.)</p>
</div>
<p>The aspect of this collection shews a marked
similarity to that of the so-called Forest-bed of
Cromer, though at the same time indicating a later
age. The Mauer jaw must therefore be assigned to
the very earliest part of the Pleistocene epoch. In his
original memoir, Dr Schoetensack gave no account
of any associated ‘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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p>
<p><i>Taubach</i>. The bone-bed (<i>Knochenschicht</i>) of
Taubach whence the two human teeth were recovered,
lies at a depth of some 15 feet (5·2 m.) from the
adjacent surface-soil. No fewer than eleven distinct
horizons have been recognised in the superincumbent
strata. Palaeoliths had often been obtained from
the same stratum as that which yielded the human
teeth. Dr Weiss referred it to the first, i.e. the
earlier of two inter-glacial periods judged to have
occurred in this region. The associated fauna
includes <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, <i>Bison
priscus</i>, with Cervidae and representatives of swine,
beaver and a bear. The similarity of this assemblage
to that of the Mauer Sands has been
noted already.</p>
<p>The hippopotamus however does not seem to
have been recorded in either locality. Nevertheless,
the general aspect of the mammalian fauna is
‘southern’ (<i>faune chaude</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span>
implements just described as ‘Mousterian’ are not
recognised as such by all the experts. Thus Obermaier
identifies them with those of Levallois, <i>i.e.</i> a late
S. Acheul type (cf. Obermaier, 1909). Others declare
that the type is not that of Le Moustier, but of
Chelles. The latter type of implement is found
habitually in association with the southern fauna,
and thus the paradox described above may prove to
be apparent only and not real. But the unravelling
of the different opinions relating to the Taubach
finds is among the easier tasks presented to anyone
desirous of furnishing a clear statement of the
actual state of our knowledge on these matters. The
difficulties with which the whole subject bristles
may thus be realised.</p>
<p><i>Krapina.</i> Researches productive of evidence as
to the existence of Palaeolithic man in Croatia, were
commenced at Krapina so long ago as August, 1899,
by Professor Kramberger. A preliminary report was
published in December, 1899. Until the year 1904
these researches passed almost unnoticed in this
country. The site was not exhausted until 1905.
The actual excavations were made in a rock-shelter
on the right bank of the Krapini[vc]a river, near the
village of Krapina. The rock-shelter had been to
some extent invaded not long before the archaeological
work commenced, and evidence of early human
occupation of the site was revealed in the form of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>
dark bands of earth, containing much charcoal.
These bands were seen as lines in the lower parts of
the exposed section of the cave contents. Fragments
of human and other bones to the number of several
thousands were removed. In one season's work six
hundred stone implements were found.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p>
<p>A section of the several strata has been published
and is reproduced in Fig. 21. Human bones or
artefacts were found throughout a wide series of
strata, in which no variations of a cultural nature were
detected. Throughout the period of human occupation,
the Palaeolithic inmates of the cave remained
on an unaltered and rather lowly level of culture.
This is described by some authorities as Mousterian,
by others as Aurignacian; in either case as of an
early Palaeolithic aspect.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_21.jpg" width="500" height="458"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_21.jpg" id="img_21.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. 3, 4 strata with
human remains. 1 <i>b</i> former level of river-bed. (From Birkner,
after Kramberger.)</p>
</div>
<p>But when the animal remains are considered,
Krapina seems to present the difficulty already
encountered in the case of Taubach. For there is no
doubt but that the ‘southern’ fauna is to some
extent represented at Krapina. This qualified form
of statement is employed because one representative
only, viz. <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, has been discovered,
whereas its habitual companions, <i>Elephas antiquus</i>
and Hippopotamus, have left no traces at Krapina.
Other animals associated with the cave-men of
Krapina are not so commonly found in the presence
of the <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>. Thus the <i>Ursus spelaeus</i>,
<i>U. arctos</i>, <i>Bos primigenius</i>, and the Arctomys
(Marmot) are suggestive of a more northern fauna.
But the presence of even a possibly stray <i>Rhinoceros
merckii</i> is sufficient to confer an aspect of great
antiquity on this early Croatian settlement. No
evidence of formal interments has come to light, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>
as regards the cannibalistic habits of the human cave-dwellers,
no more than the merest surmise exists.</p>
<p><i>S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey.</i> In the cave thus
designated, old hearths were met with at a depth of
twenty-five feet below the surface. Human beings
are represented by teeth only. No evidence of
interments has been recorded. The implements are
of Mousterian type. Associated with the hearths
and implements were many fragmentary remains of
animals. Up to the present time, the following forms
have been identified: <i>Rhinoceros tichorhinus</i> (the
hairy rhinoceros), the Reindeer, and two varieties of
Horse. So far as this evidence goes, the age assigned
to the implements is supported, or at least not contra-indicated.
It is most improbable that the period
represented can be really earlier than the Mousterian,
though it might be somewhat later. That the
Krapina teeth (which so curiously resemble those
of S. Brélade's Bay in respect of the fusion of their
roots) should be assigned to the same (Mousterian)
epoch is perhaps significant.</p>
<p><i>La Chapelle-aux-Saints</i> (<i>Corrèze</i>). This is the
best example of an interment referable to the early
Palaeolithic age (Fig. 22). Two reasons for this statement
may be given. In the first place, the skeleton
lay in a distinctly excavated depression, beneath
which no signs of an earlier settlement are recorded.
Secondly, the superincumbent strata can be assigned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>
to one period only of the archaeological series, viz.
that of Le Moustier. Indications of the preceding
period (S. Acheul) as well as of the subsequent one
(Aurignac) are practically negligible. Moreover the
surroundings had not been disturbed since the
interment: this is shewn by the leg-bones of a large
bovine animal (Bison or Bos) found in their natural
relations just above the head of the human skeleton.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_22.jpg" width="400" height="525"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_22.jpg" id="img_22.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints
(Corrèze). (From Boule.)</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p>
<p>The latter lay on the back, the right arm bent,
the left extended; both legs were contracted and to
the right. In general, this attitude recalls that of
the skeletons of La Ferrassie and the Grotte des
Enfants (Grimaldi). At Le Moustier too, the skeleton
was found in a somewhat similar position.</p>
<p>At La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the associated fauna
includes the Reindeer, Horse, a large bovine form
(? Bison), <i>Rhinoceros tichorhinus</i>, the Ibex, Wolf,
Marmot, Badger and Boar.</p>
<p>It would seem that this particular cave had served
only as a tomb. For other purposes its vertical
extent is too small. The stone artefacts are all
perfect tools: no flakes or splinters being found as
in habitations. The animal remains are supposed to
be relics of a funeral feast (or feasts). But the
presence of the Rhinoceros is perhaps antagonistic to
such an explanation.</p>
<p><i>Le Moustier</i> (<i>Dordogne</i>). The skeleton lay on its
right side, the right arm bent and supporting the
head; the left arm was extended. The stratum upon
which the body rested consisted largely of worked
flint implements. These are assigned to the later
Acheulean and earlier Mousterian epochs.</p>
<p>Two features in contrast with the conditions at
La Chapelle are to be noticed. It is doubtful whether
the skeleton at Le Moustier had been literally interred.
It seems rather to have been placed on what was at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span>
the time the floor of the grotto, and then covered
partly with earth on which implements were scattered.
Indications of a definite grave were found at La
Chapelle. Again at Le Moustier, other parts of the same
grotto had been occupied as habitations of the living.
At La Chapelle this seems not to have been the case.</p>
<p>The evidence of the accompanying animal remains
also differs in the two cases. At Le Moustier, only
small and very fragmentary animal bones with the
tooth of an ox were found in the immediate vicinity
of the human skeleton. An extended search revealed
bones of <i>Bos primigenius</i> in the cave. No bones of
the Reindeer were found and their absence is specially
remarked by Professor Klaatsch, as evidence that the
skeleton at Le Moustier is of greater antiquity than
the skeleton accompanied by reindeer bones at La
Chapelle. In any case, it would seem that no great
lapse of time separates the two strata.</p>
<p><i>La Ferrassie.</i> The skeleton was found in the
same attitude as those of La Chapelle and Le Moustier,
viz. in the dorsal position, the right arm bent, the left
extended, both legs being strongly flexed at the knee
and turned to the right side. The bones were covered
by some 3·5 m. of <i>débris</i>: stone implements were
yielded by strata above and below the body respectively.
Beneath the skeleton, the implements are of
Acheulean type, while above and around it the type
of Le Moustier was encountered. Aurignacian implements
occurred still nearer the surface.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p>
<p>In regard to the evidence of interment the conditions
here resemble those at Le Moustier rather than
those of La Chapelle. The human skeleton did not
appear to have been deposited in a grave, but simply
laid on the ground, covered no doubt by earth upon
which flint implements were scattered. But the cave
continued to be occupied until at the close of the
Aurignacian period a fall of rock sealed up the
entrance. It is difficult to realise the conditions of life
in such a cave, after the death of a member of the community,
unless, as among the cave-dwelling Veddas
of Ceylon, the cave were temporarily abandoned
(Seligmann, 1911). It is possible that the normal
accumulation of animal remains created such an
atmosphere as would not be greatly altered by the
addition of a human corpse, for Professor Tylor has
recorded instances of such interments among certain
South American tribes. But it is also conceivable
that the enormously important change in custom from
inhumation to cremation, may owe an origin to some
comparatively simple circumstance of this kind. The
animal remains at La Ferrassie include Bison, Stag,
and Horse, with a few Reindeer. The general aspect
is thus concordant with that at La Chapelle.</p>
<p><i>Pech de l'Aze.</i> It is impossible to decide whether
the child's skull had been buried intentionally or
not. The associated fauna is apparently identical
with that of La Ferrassie and La Chapelle.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p>
<p><i>Forbes Quarry</i> (<i>Gibraltar</i>). Of the surroundings
of the Forbes Quarry skull at the time of its discovery
nothing is known. In 1910 the present writer explored
Forbes Quarry and a small cave opening into it.
But no evidence of the presence of prehistoric man
was obtained. Bones of recent mammalia and certain
molluscs found during the excavations, throw no light
on this subject.</p>
<p><i>Andalusia.</i> At the time of writing, only the
following information is available as to the surroundings
of these human cave-bones. They were
discovered on or near the floor of a deep fissure
leading to a series of labyrinthine passages. The
walls of the fissure or cave were decorated with
drawings of animals resembling those at Cretas in
Aragon. Besides the mineralised bones, other fragments
of less antiquated aspect were found. Potsherds
were also obtained, but I have no information
as to the occurrence of implements.</p>
<p><i>Grotte des Enfants</i> (<i>Mentone</i>). With regard to
the two ‘negroid’ skeletons of this cave, the first
important point is the enormous thickness of accumulated
<i>débris</i> by which the bones were covered.
A depth of some twenty-four feet had been reached
before the discovery was made (Fig. 23).</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_23.jpg" width="600" height="438"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_23.jpg" id="img_23.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption"> Fig. 23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. <i>I.</i> stratum in which
the “Grimaldi” skeletons were found. (From Boule.)</p>
</div>
<p>The bodies had been definitely interred, large
stones being found in position, adjusted so as to
protect the heads particularly. The bodies had been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a><br /><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span>
placed on the right side. Of the woman, both arms
were bent as were the lower limbs. The male
skeleton has the right arm flexed, but the left
extended (as in the cases of La Chapelle, Le Moustier,
and La Ferrassie).</p>
<p>It is practically certain that the skeletons do not
belong to an epoch represented, as regards its
culture or fauna, by strata lower than that which
supported the human remains. This conclusion is
very important here. For the evidence of the
stone implements accompanying the human bones is
fairly definite: it points to the Mousterian age. The
animal bones are those of the Reindeer and Cave
Hyaena. The presence of the former animal supports
the conclusion arrived at on the evidence of the
human artefacts. The presence of the Cave Hyaena
does not controvert that conclusion.</p>
<p>But an interesting fact remains to be considered.
Below the two human skeletons, the animal remains
are those of the ‘southern’ fauna. All the characteristic
representatives were found, viz. <i>Elephas
antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, and Hippopotamus.
The Hyaena was also associated with these large
animals. It is not clearly stated whether implements
of Mousterian type occurred in these, the deepest
strata of the cave-floor. Were this so, the contention
made in respect of the Taubach implements (cf.
<i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#Page_67">67</a>) would be remarkably corroborated,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span>
as would also the somewhat similar suggestion made
in regard to Krapina. For the moment, however, it
must suffice to attribute these human remains of
negroid aspect to the Mousterian period at Mentone.
Inasmuch as the reindeer appears in several strata
overlying the remains of the Grimaldi race (for so
it has been named by Dr Verneau), it is certainly
conceivable that the two individuals are Aurignacian
or even later. But this is to enter a wilderness of
surmise. Human skeletons were actually found in
those more superficial strata and also were associated
with the Reindeer. But their cranial features are of
a higher type (Cro-Magnon) and contrast very clearly
with those of the more deeply buried individuals.</p>
<p><i>South America.</i> The two discoveries mentioned
in the preceding chapter were made in the so-called
Pampas formation of Argentina. This formation has
been subdivided by geologists into three successive
portions, viz. upper, middle and lower. The distinction
is based partly upon evidence derived from
the actual characters of deposits which differ according
to their level. But the molluscan fauna
has also been used as a means of distinction. The
whole formation is stated by some to be fluviatile.
Other observers speak of it as Löss. This need not
necessarily exclude a fluviatile origin, but speaking
generally that term now suggests an aerial rather than
a subaqueous deposit. The upper subdivision is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span>
designated the yellow löss in contrast to the brown
löss forming the middle layer. Opinion is much
divided as to the exact geological age of the Pampas
formation. Ameghino refers it to the Pliocene period,
excepting the lower divisions which he regards as
upper Miocene. Professor Lehmann-Nitsche assigns
Pliocene antiquity to the lowest sub-division only.
Dr Steinmann regards the middle and lower sub-divisions
as equivalents of the ‘older’ löss of
European Pleistocene deposits. The latter determinations
are more probably correct than is the first.</p>
<p><i>Baradero.</i> The Baradero skeleton was obtained
from the middle formation or brown löss, in a locality
marked by the presence of mollusca corresponding
with modern forms, and contrasted with the Tertiary
Argentine mollusca. The skeleton was in a ‘natural’
(<i>i.e.</i> not a contracted) position, the head being
depressed on the front of the chest. No associated
implements or remains of mammalian skeletons are
recorded.</p>
<p><i>Monte Hermoso.</i> The vertebra and femur were
found in the lower subdivision of the Pampas formation.
We have seen that Ameghino refers this
to the Miocene epoch: Lehmann-Nitsche speaks of it
as Pliocene, Steinmann's opinion suggests a still later
date, while Scott also declares that no greater age
than that of the Pleistocene period can be assigned.
The two specimens were obtained at very different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span>
times, an interval of many years separating the dates
of the respective discoveries. So far as is known, no
mammalian or other animal remains have been
yielded by the strata in question, so that the whole
case in regard to evidence is one of the most unsatisfactory
on record. Indeed the whole question of
‘dating’ the Argentine discoveries, whether absolutely
or relatively, must be regarded as an unsolved problem.</p>
<p><i>Combe Capelle</i> (<i>Dordogne</i>). The circumstances
of this discovery were as follows. The skeleton lay
in an extended position, and it had been placed in
an excavation made for the purpose of interment.
This excavation entered a stratum distinguished as
Mousterian. But the interment is considered to be
later, and of Aurignacian antiquity. Stone implements
of Aurignacian type were disposed around the skeleton:
in addition to these, a number of molluscan shells
were arranged about the skull. This suggestion of
ornament would of itself suggest the later period to
which the skeleton is assigned. No remains of animals
are mentioned in the accounts accessible to me.</p>
<p><i>Brüx</i> (<i>Bohemia</i>). The Brüx skeleton was discovered
in 1871. It lay some five feet beneath the
surface in a deposit which seems to be an ancient
one of fluviatile origin. The Biela river is not far
from the spot. The bones were very fragmentary,
and in particular the skull-cap has been reconstructed
from no less than a dozen fragments. The limb bones<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>
were also fractured. Near the skeleton, some remains
of an Ox were found on the same level. Two feet
above the skeleton, a stone implement, seemingly a
Neolithic axe, was brought to light.</p>
<p>The information is thus meagre in the extreme,
and when the condition of the skull is taken into
account, it is evident that the Brüx skeleton is not
one upon which far-reaching arguments can be
successfully based. The interest of the specimen
depends above all upon the results of the careful
analysis of its characters made by Professor Schwalbe<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>
(1906).</p>
<p><i>Brünn</i> (1871). This discovery was made at a
depth of 4·5 metres in red löss. Close to the human
bones lay the tusk and the shoulder-blade of a
Mammoth. The same stratum subsequently yielded
the skull of a young Rhinoceros (<i>R. tichorhinus</i>): some
ribs of a Rhinoceros are scored or marked in a way
suggestive of human activity: other ribs of the same
kind were artificially perforated. More noteworthy,
however, is a human figurine carved in ivory of a
Mammoth tusk. Several hundreds of the shell of
<i>Dentalium badense</i> lying close to the human remains
were truncated in such a way as to suggest that they
had once formed a necklace.</p>
<p><i>Galley Hill</i> (<i>Kent</i>). The gravel-pit whence the
skeleton was obtained invades the ‘high-level terrace-gravel’
of the Thames valley. Such is the opinion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>
of expert geologists (Hinton<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a>). In the gravel-pit a
section through ten feet of gravel is exposed above
the chalk. The bones were eight feet from the top of
the gravel. Palaeolithic implements of a primitive
type have been obtained from the same deposit at
Galley Hill. No precise designation seems to have
been assigned to them. From the published figures,
they seem to correspond to the earlier Acheulean or
to the Chellean type. One in particular, resembles
the implements found at Reculver, and I have recently
seen similar specimens which had been obtained
by dredging off the Kentish coast near Whitstable.
Some of the Galley Hill implements are compared
to the high plateau forms from Ightham. These must
be of great antiquity. Professor Rutot in 1903
assigned the Galley Hill skeleton to a period by him
named Mafflian. This diagnosis seems to have been
based upon the characters of the implements. Recently
however (1909) Professor Rutot has brought the
skeleton down into the Strépyan epoch, which is
much less ancient than that of Maffle.</p>
<p>The associated fauna comes now into consideration.
From the Galley Hill gravel-pit no mammalian remains
other than the human skeleton have been reported,
but the fauna of the ‘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 <i>Cyrena fluminalis</i>, indicative of a sub-tropical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span>
climate, has been found in these strata.
As regards the mammalian fauna, it is interesting
to compare the list given by Mr E. T. Newton in 1895,
with that published by Mr M. A. C. Hinton in 1910
on the basis of independent observations.</p>
<table summary="Newton_list">
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4"><i>Mr Newton's list</i>, 1895.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">1.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Elephas primigenius.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">2.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Hippopotamus.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">3.</td>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros:</td>
<td class="tdl">species</td>
<td class="tdl">uncertain.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">4.</td>
<td class="tdl">Bos.</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">5.</td>
<td class="tdl">Equus.</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">6.</td>
<td class="tdl">Cervus.</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">7.</td>
<td class="tdl">Felis leo.</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
<td class="tdc">„</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table summary="Hinton_list">
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="2"><i>Mr Hinton's list</i>, 1910.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">1.</td>
<td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus (a more primitive form than E. primigenius).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">2.</td>
<td class="tdl">No Hippopotamus (this occurs later, in the Middle Terrace).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">3.</td>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros megarhinus.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">4.</td>
<td class="tdl">Bos: species uncertain.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">5.</td>
<td class="tdl">Equus: species similar to the Pliocene E. stenonis.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">6.</td>
<td class="tdl">Cervus: 3 species: one resembles the Fallow-deer (C. dama), a ‘southern’ form.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">7.</td>
<td class="tdl">Felis leo.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">8.</td>
<td class="tdl">Sus: species uncertain: bones of limbs shew primitive features.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">9.</td>
<td class="tdl">Canis: species uncertain.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">10.</td>
<td class="tdl">Delphinus: species uncertain.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">11.</td>
<td class="tdl">Trogontherium: species differing from the Pliocene form.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">12.</td>
<td class="tdl">Various smaller rodents, such as Voles.</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>No definitely ‘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.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="Table_A" id="Table_A">TABLE A</a></p>
<table id="p84" summary="Table_A">
<tr>
<td class="td1" valign="top" rowspan="3">I<br />Classification by characters<br />of human bones<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></td>
<td class="td1" valign="top" rowspan="3">II<br />Example</td>
<td class="td1" valign="top" rowspan="2">III</td>
<td class="td8" colspan="2">IV</td>
<td class="td8" colspan="2">V</td>
<td class="td3" valign="top" rowspan="3">VI</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5" colspan="2">Circumstances and surroundings:</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td2">Immediate surroundings</td>
<td class="td1" colspan="2">Associated animals</td>
<td class="td1" colspan="2">Name of types of associated implements</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td7">Division II</td>
<td class="td7"> </td>
<td class="td7"> </td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2"> </td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2"> </td>
<td class="td5"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4">Subdivision <i>B</i></td>
<td class="td7">(1) Combe Capelle</td>
<td class="td4">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2">Reindeer</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2">Aurignacian</td>
<td class="td5">Interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(2) Galley Hill</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Alluvial drift of High Terrace<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Acheulean to ?Strépyan</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">?<br />No interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros megarhinus<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Trogontherium (Rodent)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Mimomys (Rodent)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(3) Grimaldi (Mentone)</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Mousterian ? also Aurignacian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Hyaena spelaea</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Felis spelaea</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">(Marmot in higher strata)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Subdivision <i>A</i></td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(4) La Ferrassie</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Bison priscus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(5) Pech de l'Aze</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(Head only found?)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Bison priscus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(6) Le Moustier</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Bos primigenius</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl"><i>No reindeer</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" valign="middle">(7) La Chapelle</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="2" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Reindeer (<i>scarce</i>)</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="2" valign="middle">Interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Bison priscus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="3" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="3" valign="middle">(8) S. Brélade</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="3" valign="middle">Cave</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="3" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Reindeer</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="3" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="3" valign="middle">?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Bos ? sp.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros tichorhinus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(9) Krapina</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Cave (Rock-shelter)</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros merckii</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Cave Bear</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Bos primigenius</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Marmot (Arctomys)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(10) Taubach</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Alluvial Deposit<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="3" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">? Mousterian</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">No interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros merckii</td>
<td class="tdl">? Upper Acheulean = Levallois</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Felis leo</td>
<td class="tdl">? Chellean</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl" style="border-right: 1px solid black;">No Hippopotamus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Division II</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" valign="middle">(11) Mauer</td>
<td class="td4" rowspan="4" valign="middle">Alluvial deposit</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Elephas antiquus</td>
<td class="td7" colspan="2" rowspan="4" valign="middle">None found</td>
<td class="td5" rowspan="4" valign="middle">No interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros etruscus<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Ursus arvernensis</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">No Hippopotamus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td2" rowspan="3" valign="middle">„</td>
<td class="td2" style="text-align: left;" rowspan="3" valign="middle">(12) Trinil</td>
<td class="td2" rowspan="3" valign="middle">Alluvial deposit</td>
<td class="td2" rowspan="3" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl">Hippopotamus?</td>
<td class="td2" colspan="2" style="text-align: left;" rowspan="3" valign="middle">None found by Dubois</td>
<td class="td6" rowspan="3" valign="middle">No interment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl">Rhinoceros sivasoudaicus</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl" style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">Other Sivalik types</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> South American remains and some others are omitted owing to insufficiency of data relating to their surroundings.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Names of fossil varieties of Rhinoceros. These are very confused. The term R. <i>leptorhinus</i> should be avoided altogether. R. <i>megarhinus</i> represents the R. <i>leptorhinus</i> of Falconer
and Cuvier. R. <i>merckii</i> represents R. <i>hemitoechus</i> of Falconer, which is the R. <i>leptorhinus</i> of Owen and Boyd Dawkins. R. <i>tichorhinus</i> is R. <i>antiquitatis</i> of Falconer and some German writers.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> The formation of the High Terrace drift is earlier than the date of arrival of the ‘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 <i>Homo aurignacensis</i>
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.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> The upper strata at Taubach yielded Reindeer and Mammoth. Near Weimar, Wüst says the stratigraphical positions of <i>R. merckii</i> and <i>R. antiquitatis</i> have been found inverted.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Typical Val d'Arno (Pliocene) form.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER IV<br />
<span style="font-size: 80%;">ASSOCIATED ANIMALS AND IMPLEMENTS</span></h2>
<p>The most important of recent discoveries of the
remains of early prehistoric man have now been
considered. Not only the evidence of the actual
remains, but also that furnished by their surroundings
has been called upon. It is evident that the last
decade has been remarkably productive of additions
to the stock of information on these subjects.</p>
<p>In the next place, enquiry has to be made
whether any relation exists between the two methods
of grouping, viz. (1) that in which the characters
of the skeletons are taken as the test, and (2) that
dependent upon the nature of the surroundings.
A first attempt to elucidate the matter can be
made by means of a tabulated statement, such as
that which follows.</p>
<p>In constructing this table, the various finds have
been ordinated according to the degree of resemblance
to modern Europeans presented by the respective
skeletons. Thus Division II with Subdivision <i>B</i>
heads the list. Then follows Subdivision <i>A</i>, and
finally Division I will be found in the lowest place.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span>
This order having been adopted, the remaining data
were added in the sequence necessarily imposed upon
them thereby.</p>
<p>(<i>a</i>) In an analysis of this table the several
columns should be considered in order. Taking that
headed ‘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.</p>
<p>(<i>b</i>) 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>
as exceptions. Moreover they have again some features
in common, just as has been noted in respect of their
alluvial surroundings. For the Elephant (<i>E. antiquus</i>)
is identical in both instances. But the Rhinoceros
of the ‘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
<i>Rhinoceros megarhinus</i> has been considered to stand
in what may be termed a grand-parental relation to
that of Taubach (<i>R. merckii</i>), the <i>Rhinoceros etruscus</i>
of the Mauer Sands representing the intervening
generation (Gaudry<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>, 1888). For the various names,
reference should be made to the list of synonyms
appended to Table A. Should further evidence of
the relative isolation of the Galley Hill skeleton be
required, the gigantic beaver (Trogontherium) is
there to provide it, since nowhere else in this list
does this rodent appear. The paradoxical position
of the Galley Hill skeleton having been indicated, it
is convenient to deal with all the examples of skeletons
from alluvial deposits taken as a single group, irrespective
of their actual characters.</p>
<p>(i) The study of the animals found in the corresponding
or identical <i>alluvial deposits</i>, leads to
inferences which may be stated as follows. The
Trinil (Java) fauna will not be included, since the
Javanese and European animals are not directly
comparable. If attention is confined to the remaining<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span>
instances, viz. Galley Hill, Taubach and Mauer, agreement
is shewn in respect of the presence of <i>Elephas
antiquus</i>, and this is absent from all the cave-deposits
considered here [<i>v. infra</i> (ii) p. 90]. A rhinoceros
appears in all three localities, but is different in each.
Finally, two (viz. Galley Hill and Mauer) of the three,
provide at least one very remarkable mammalian form,
viz. Trogontherium (<i>Mimomys cantianus</i> is equally
suggestive) of the high-level gravels, and the <i>Ursus
arvernensis</i> of the Mauer Sands.</p>
<p>The significance of these animals may be indicated
more clearly by the following statement. If the
history of <i>Elephas antiquus</i> be critically traced, this
animal appears first in a somewhat hazy atmosphere,
viz. that of the transition period between Pliocene
and Pleistocene times. It is a more primitive form
of elephant than the Mammoth. Indeed, Gaudry<a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>
(1888) placed it in a directly ancestral relation
to the last-mentioned elephant. And though the
two were contemporary for a space, yet <i>Elephas
antiquus</i> was the first to disappear. Moreover this
elephant has much more definite associations with
the southern group of mammals than has the Mammoth.
Its presence is therefore indicative of the
considerable antiquity of the surrounding deposits,
provided always that the latter be contemporaneous
with it. With regard to the Rhinoceros, the species
<i>R. megarhinus</i> and <i>R. etruscus</i> have been found in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>
definitely Pliocene strata. The former (<i>R. megarhinus</i>)
seems to have appeared earliest (at Montpellier),
whereas the Etruscan form owes its name to the
late Pliocene formations of the Val d'Arno, in which
it was originally discovered. The third species
(<i>R. merckii</i>) is somewhat later, but of similar age
to <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, with which it constantly
appears. It is remarkable that the <i>R. etruscus</i>,
though not the earliest to appear, seems yet to have
become extinct before the older <i>R. megarhinus</i>.
The latter was contemporary with <i>R. merckii</i>, though
it did not persist so long as that species. With
regard to the three alluvial deposits, the Rhinoceros
provides a means of distinction not indicated by
the elephantine representative, and the presence of
<i>R. etruscus</i> is a test for very ancient deposits. From
what has been stated above, it follows that of the
three localities the Mauer Sands have the more
ancient facies, and it is significant that here also the
human form proves to be furthest removed from
modern men. But the other localities are not clearly
differentiated, save that the Taubach strata are
perhaps the more recent of the two.</p>
<p>Coming next to the ‘peculiar’ animals; the
<i>Ursus arvernensis</i> of Mauer is almost as distinctively
‘Pliocene’ as its associate, <i>Rhinoceros etruscus</i>.
The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable
to these, nor to the Trogontherium (or Mimomys)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span>
of the high-level terrace gravel. These animals are
also strongly suggestive of the Pliocene fauna.</p>
<p>To sum up, it will be found that the evidence
of the Elephant is to the effect that these alluvial
deposits are of early Pleistocene age. It leads to
the expectation that the fauna in general will have
a ‘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 <i>Elephas antiquus</i> will
occur there (as indeed it does).</p>
<p>The other animals mentioned clinch the evidence
for the Pliocene resemblance, and (at latest) the
early Pleistocene antiquity of the Mauer Sands and
the high-level terrace gravels. Within the limits
thus indicated, the deposit of Mauer is again shewn
to be the oldest, followed by the terrace-gravels,
while Taubach is the latest and youngest of the
three. All the characteristic animals are now entirely
extinct.</p>
<p>For the reasons stated above, the fossil Javanese
mammals of Trinil have not been discussed. It will
suffice to note that on the whole they indicate a still
earlier period than those of the European deposits
in question.</p>
<p>(ii) The animals associated with the <i>cave-men</i> now
call for consideration. The great outstanding feature<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span>
is the constancy with which the Reindeer is found.
This leads to a presumption that the climate was
at least temperate rather than ‘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 <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i>, described above as one of
the later arrivals in the epochs represented by the
alluvial deposits. Krapina does not provide the
Reindeer, and in this respect is contrasted again
with the remaining localities. Yet the presence of
the Marmot at Krapina may be nearly as significant
as that of the Reindeer would be.</p>
<p>Another cave, viz. the Grotte des Enfants, may
also need reconsideration. For instance, the <i>Rhinoceros
merckii</i> was found in the deepest strata of this
cave: but I do not consider that adequate evidence
is given of its contemporaneity with the two human
skeletons here considered. But the Reindeer is
found in the same cave, as indicated in the table.</p>
<p>With the exception of Krapina therefore, the
conditions are remarkably uniform. This conclusion
is confirmed by the evidence from many caves not
described in detail here because of the lack of human<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span>
bones therein or the imperfection of such as were found.
Such caves have yielded abundant evidence in regard
to the ‘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 (<i>E. primigenius</i>) was
contemporaneous with the Reindeer, but was plentiful
while the Reindeer was still rare. A similar remark
applies to the Hairy Rhinoceros (<i>R. tichorhinus</i>), and
also to the Cave-Bear. The Cervidae (other than the
Reindeer), the Equidae, the Suidae (Swine) and the
smaller Rodentia (especially Voles) are under investigation,
but the results are not applicable to the finer
distinctions envisaged here.</p>
<p>To sum up the outcome of this criticism; it
appears that of the cave-finds, Krapina stands out
in contrast with the remainder, in the sense that
its fauna is more ancient, and is indicative of a
southern rather than a temperate environment. The
latitude of Krapina has been invoked by way of
explaining this difference, upon the supposition that
the <i>Rhinoceros merckii</i> survived longer in the south.
Yet Krapina does not differ in respect of latitude
from the caves of Le Moustier and La Chapelle,
while it is rather to the north of the Mentone<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span>
caves. Lastly, some weight must be attached to
the alleged discovery at Pont Newydd in Wales, of
Mousterian implements with remains of <i>R. merckii</i>.</p>
<p>The fauna of the other caves suggests temperate,
if not sub-arctic conditions of climate. In all cases,
the cave-finds are assignable to a period later in
time than that in which the fluviatile deposits
(previously discussed) were formed. The cave-men
thus come within the later subdivisions of the
Pleistocene period.</p>
<p>(<i>c</i>) The fifth column of the table gives the types
of stone implements found in association with the
respective remains. As is well known, and as was
stated in the introductory sentences of this book,
stone artefacts constitute the second great class of
evidence on the subject of human antiquity. As
such they might appropriately have been accorded
a separate chapter or even a volume. Here a brief
sketch only of their significance in evidence will be
attempted. The value of stone implements in deciding
upon the age of deposits (whether in caves or elsewhere)
depends upon the intimacy of the relation
existing between various forms of implement and
strata of different age. How close that intimacy
really is, has been debated often and at great length.
Opinions are still at variance in regard to details,
but as to certain main points, no doubt remains. Yet
the study is one in which even greater specialisation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>
is needed than in respect of comparative osteology.
The descriptions following these preliminary remarks
are based upon as extensive an examination as possible,
both of the literature, and of the materials.</p>
<p>To discuss the validity of the claims made in
favour of or against the recognition of certain individual
types will be impossible, save in the very
briefest form. The better-known varieties have
received names corresponding to the localities where
they were first discovered, or where by reason of
their abundance they led to the recognition of their
special value as a means of classification. These
designations will be employed without further definition
or explanation, save in a few instances.</p>
<p>Commencing again with the fifth column of the
table, the first point to notice is that no implements
at all have been discovered in immediate association
with the fossil remains at Mauer and Trinil (Java).
Yet in the absence of evidence, it must not be
concluded that the contemporary representatives of
mankind were incapable of providing such testimony.
Evidence will be adduced presently to show the
incorrectness of such a conclusion.</p>
<p>In the next place, the great majority of the cave-men
are associated with implements of one and the
same type, viz. the Mousterian, so called from the
locality (Le Moustier) which has furnished so complete
an example of ancient prehistoric man.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span></p>
<p>Lastly, the Galley Hill skeleton maintains the
distinctive position assigned to it, for as in the
previous columns, it disagrees also here with the
majority of the examples ranged near it.</p>
<p>If enquiry be made as to the significance, <i>i.e.</i> the
sequence in point of time and the general status of
the various types of implements mentioned in the
table, it will be found that all without exception are
described as of Palaeolithic type. Indeed they furnish
largely the justification for the application of
that term (employed so often in Chapter II) to the
various skeletons described there.</p>
<p>To these Palaeolithic implements, others of the
Neolithic types succeeded in Europe. [It is necessary
to insist upon this succession as European, since
palaeoliths are still in use among savage tribes, such
as the aboriginal (Bush) natives of South Africa.]
Confining attention to palaeoliths and their varieties,
the discovery of a form alleged to fill the gap
separating the most ancient Neolithic from the least
ancient Palaeolithic types may be mentioned. The
implements were obtained from the cave known as
Le Mas d'Azil in the south of France.</p>
<p>In Germany, the researches of Professor Schmidt<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>
in the caverns of Württemburg have revealed a
series of strata distinguished not only in position and
sequence but also by the successive types of stone
implements related to the several horizons. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span>
sequence may be shewn most concisely if the deposits
are compared in a tabular form as follows (Table I).</p>
<p>These caves give the information necessary for
a correct appreciation of the position of all the
cave-implements in Table A. Reverting to the latter,
and having regard to the cave-men, both subdivisions
of Division II (cf. <a href="#Table_A">Table A</a>) appear, but no example
or representative of the earliest form (designated
by Division I). The fauna is entirely Pleistocene, if
we except such a trifling claim to Pliocene antiquity
as may be based upon the presence of <i>Rhinoceros
merckii</i> at Krapina.</p>
<p>The results of this enquiry shew therefore that
genuine Mousterian implements are of Pleistocene age,
that they were fabricated by human beings of a comparatively
low type, who lived in caves and were by
occupation hunters of deer and other large ungulate
animals. So much has long been known, but the extraordinary
distinctness of the evidence of superposition
shewn in Professor Schmidt's work at Sirgenstein,
furnishes the final proof of results arrived at in earlier
days by the slow comparison of several sites representing
single epochs. That work also helps to re-establish
the Aurignacian horizon and period as distinctive.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">TABLE I.</p>
<table id="p97" summary="Table_I">
<tr>
<td class="td1" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Levels</td>
<td class="td1" colspan="2">Type of Implement</td>
<td class="td3" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Fauna</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td2">Ofnet</td>
<td class="td2">Sirgenstein</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4">A.</td>
<td class="tdl">Most superficial</td>
<td class="td4">—</td>
<td class="td4">Bronze</td>
<td class="td5" colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td class="td4">Neolithic</td>
<td class="td4">—</td>
<td class="td5" colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4">B.</td>
<td class="tdl">1. Intermediate</td>
<td class="td4">Azilian</td>
<td class="td4">—</td>
<td class="td5" colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td class="td4" colspan="2">Palaeolithic</td>
<td class="td5" colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4"> </td>
<td class="tdl">2. Deepest stratum at Ofnet</td>
<td class="td4">Magdalenian</td>
<td class="td4">Magdalenian</td>
<td class="td7" rowspan="4" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblt"> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="td9">Myodes torquatus (the Banded Lemming)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4"> </td>
<td class="tdl">3.</td>
<td class="td4">—</td>
<td class="td4">Solutréan</td>
<td class="td9" rowspan="2">Fauna of a northern character throughout:<br />with Reindeer, Mammoth, Rhinoceros<br />tichorhinus and Horse</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4"> </td>
<td class="tdl">4.</td>
<td class="td4">—</td>
<td class="td4">Aurignacian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td2"> </td>
<td class="td6">5. Deepest stratum at Sirgenstein</td>
<td class="td2">—</td>
<td class="td2">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td8">Myodes obensis (a Siberian Lemming)</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>When attention is turned from the cave-finds to
those in alluvial deposits, names more numerous
but less familiar meet the view. As the animals
have been shewn to differ, so the types of implements<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>
provide a marked contrast. Yet a transition is
suggested by the claim made on behalf of Mousterian
implements for the Taubach deposits, a claim which
(it will be remembered) is absolutely rejected by
some experts of high authority.</p>
<p>In pursuing the sequence of implements from the
Mousterian back to still earlier types, cave-hunting
will as a rule provide one step only, though this is
of the greatest value. In a few caves, implements
of the type made famous by discoveries in alluvial
gravels at S. Acheul in France (and designated the
Acheulean type) have been found in the deeper
levels. Such a cave is that of La Ferrassie (cf. p. <a href="#Page_74">74</a>);
another is that of La Chapelle, in which (it will be
remembered) the Acheulean implements underlay the
human interment. Kent's Hole in Devonshire is
even more remarkable. For the lowest strata in this
cavern yielded implements of the earliest Chellean
form, though this important fact is not commonly
recognised. Such caves are of the greatest interest,
for they provide direct evidence of the succession of
types, within certain limits. But the indefatigable
labours of M. Commont<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> of Amiens have finally
welded the two series, viz. the cave-implements and
the river-drift implements, into continuity, by demonstrating
in the alluvial deposits of the river Somme,
a succession of types, from the Mousterian backwards
to much more primitive forms. These newly-published
results have been appropriately supplemented by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span>
discoveries in the alluvial strata of the Danube.
Combining these results from the river deposits, and
for the sake of comparison, adding those from the
caves at Ofnet and Sirgenstein, a tabulated statement
(Table II) has been drawn up.</p>
<p>The two examples of human skeletons from
alluvial deposits given in Table A are thus assigned
to epochs distinguished by forms of implement more
primitive than those found usually in caves; and
moreover the more primitive implements are actually
shewn to occur in deeper (<i>i.e.</i> more ancient) horizons
where superposition has been observed. The greater
antiquity of the two river-drift men (as contrasted
with the cave-men) has been indicated already by
the associated animals, and this evidence is now
confirmed by the characters of the implements.</p>
<p>It may be remarked again that the details of
stratigraphical succession have but recently received
complete demonstration, mainly through the researches
of Messrs Commont, Obermaier[30], and
Bayer<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a>. The importance of such results is extraordinarily
far-reaching, since a means is provided
hereby of correlating archaeological with geological
evidence to an extent previously unattained.</p>
<p>(<i>d</i>) It will be noted that this advance has taken
little or no account of actual human remains. For
in the nature of things, implements will be preserved
in river deposits, where skeletons would quickly
disintegrate and vanish.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">TABLE II.</p>
<table id="p100" summary="Table_II">
<tr>
<td class="td1" colspan="4">A. Caves<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></td>
<td class="td2" colspan="3">B. Alluvial deposits</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td3" colspan="2">Type of Implement</td>
<td class="td3">Ofnet<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td>
<td class="td3">Sirgenstein(2)</td>
<td class="td4">S. Acheul (Tellier)<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
<td class="td3">Willendorf (Austria)<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></td>
<td class="td10">S. Acheul (Tellier, etc.)<a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5"> </td>
<td class="td6">1.</td>
<td class="td7"> </td>
<td class="td7">Bronze</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5">Neolithic</td>
<td class="td6">2.</td>
<td class="td7">Neolithic</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5">Intermediate</td>
<td class="td6">3.</td>
<td class="td7">Azilian</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5">Palaeolithic</td>
<td class="td6">4.</td>
<td class="td7">Magdalenian</td>
<td class="td7">Magdalenian</td>
<td class="td8">Magdalenian</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5"> </td>
<td class="td6">5.</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td7">Solutréan</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">Solutréan</td>
<td class="td12">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5"> </td>
<td class="td6">6.</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td7">Aurignacian</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">Aurignacian</td>
<td class="td12">—</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5"> </td>
<td class="td6">7.</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td7">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">Mousterian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5"> </td>
<td class="td6">8.</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">Acheulean</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td5"> </td>
<td class="td6">9.</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td7">—</td>
<td class="td12">Chellean</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td3"> </td>
<td class="td13">10.</td>
<td class="td3">—</td>
<td class="td3">—</td>
<td class="td11">—</td>
<td class="td3">—</td>
<td class="td10">“Industrie grossière”</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> For the occurrence of Acheulean and Chellean implements in caves, v. page 98.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Schmidt, 1909.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Commont, 1908.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Obermaier and Bayer, 1909.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span></p>
<p>The next subject of enquiry is therefore that of
the antiquity of Man as indicated by the occurrence
of his artefacts.</p>
<p>The succession of Palaeolithic implements has just
been given and discussed, as far back as the period
marked by the Chellean implements of the lower river
gravels (not necessarily the lower terrace) of S. Acheul.
For up to this point the testimony of human remains
can be called in evidence. And as regards the associated
animals, the Chellean implements (Taubach)
have been shewn to accompany a group of animals
suggestive of the Pliocene fauna which they followed.</p>
<p>But implements of the type of Chelles have been
found with a more definitely ‘Pliocene’ form of
elephant than those already mentioned. At S. Prest
and at Tilloux in France, Chellean implements are
associated with <i>Elephas meridionalis</i>, a species
destined to become extinct in very early Pleistocene
times. Near the Jalón river in Aragon, similar implements
accompany remains of an elephant described
as a variety of <i>E. antiquus</i> distinctly approaching
<i>E. meridionalis</i>.</p>
<p>In pursuing the evidence of human antiquity
furnished by implements, a start may be made from
the data corresponding to the Galley Hill skeleton
in column 5 of Table A. Two divergent views are
expressed here, since the alternatives “Acheulean”
or “Strépyan” are offered in the table. In the former
instance (Acheulean) a recent writer (Mr Hinton,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span>
1910) insists on the Pliocene affinities of the high-level
terrace mammals. But as a paradox, he
states that the high-level terrace deposits provide
implements of the Acheulean type, whereas the
Chellean type would be expected, since on the
Continent implements associated with a fauna of
Pliocene aspect, are of Chellean type. To follow
Mr Hinton in his able discussion of this paradox
is tempting, but not permissible here; it must
suffice to state that the difficulty is reduced if Professor
Rutot's<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> view be accepted. For the Strépyan
form of implement (which M. Rutot recognises in this
horizon) is older than the others mentioned and
resembles the Chellean type. To appreciate this, the
sequence which Professor Rutot claims to have
established is here appended.</p>
<table summary="Page_102">
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4">A. <i>Pleistocene Period.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4">(All Palaeolithic types except No. 1.)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">1.</td>
<td class="tdl">Azilian</td>
<td rowspan="5" style="padding-left: .5em; padding-right: .5em;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="bracket">
<tr>
<td class="bblr"> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td class="tdl" rowspan="5">Types found in caves as well as in alluvial deposits.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">2.</td>
<td class="tdl">Magdalenian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">3.</td>
<td class="tdl">Solutréan</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">4.</td>
<td class="tdl">Aurignacian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr">5.</td>
<td class="tdl">Mousterian</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">6.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Acheulean. Fauna of S.-E. Britain has a Pliocene aspect.
High-level terrace of Thames valley (Hinton, 1910).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">7.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Chellean. Fauna of Continent has Pliocene affinities (Hinton, 1910).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">8.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Strépyan. Galley Hill Skeleton. High-level terrace, Thames basin (Rutot, 1911).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">9.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Mesvinian. Implements on surface of chalk-plateau, Ightham, Kent (Rutot, 1900).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">10.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Mafflian. Galley Hill skeleton (Rutot, 1903). Mauer jaw (Rutot, 1911)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">11.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Reutelian. High-level terrace of Thames basin, Rutot, 1900.
The Reutelian implement is “eolithic,” and is found unchanged
in stages assigned to the Pliocene, Miocene and
Oligocene periods (Rutot, 1911).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdl" colspan="4">The duration of the Pleistocene period is estimated at about 139,000 years (Rutot, 1904).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4">B. <i>Pliocene Period.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">12.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Kentian (Reutelian).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4">C. <i>Miocene Period.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">13.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Cantalian (Reutelian).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4">D. <i>Oligocene Period.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">14.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">Fagnian (Reutelian).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdc" colspan="4">E. <i>Eocene Period.</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tdr" valign="top">15.</td>
<td class="tdl" colspan="3">[Eoliths of Duan and other French sites: not definitely recognised in 1911 by Rutot.]</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Several results of vast importance would follow,
should the tabulated suggestions be accepted unreservedly
in their entirety.</p>
<p>An inference of immediate interest is to the effect
that if Professor Rutot's view be adopted, the high-level
terrace of the Thames valley is not contrasted
so strongly with continental deposits containing
the same mammals, as Mr Hinton suggests. For
Professor Rutot's Strépyan period is earlier than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span>
the Chellean. It may be questioned whether
Mr Hinton is right in assigning only Acheulean
implements to the high-terrace gravels. Indeed
Mr E. T. Newton (1895) expressly records the occurrence
at Galley Hill, of implements more primitive
than those of Acheulean form, and ‘similar to those
found by Mr B. Harrison on the high plateau near
Ightham,’—<i>i.e.</i> the Mesvinian type of Professor
Rutot. A final decision is perhaps unattainable at
present. But on the whole, the balance of evidence
seems to go against Mr Hinton; though <i>per contra</i>
it will not escape notice that since 1903, Professor
Rutot has ‘reduced’ the Galley Hill skeleton from
the Mafflian to the Strépyan stage, and it is therefore
possible that further reduction may follow.</p>
<p>Leaving these problems of the Galley Hill implements
and the Strépyan period, the Mesvinian and
Mafflian types are described by Professor Rutot as
representatives of yet older and more primitive stages
in the evolution of these objects. As remarked above
(Chapter III), the Mauer jaw is referred by Professor
Rutot to the Mafflian (implement) period of the early
Pleistocene age, though the grounds for so definite
a statement are uncertain.</p>
<p>More primitive, and less shapely therefore, than
the Mafflian implements, are the forms designated
‘Reutelian.’ They are referred to the dawn of the
Quaternary or Pleistocene period. But with these<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span>
the initial stage of evolution seems to be reached.
Such ‘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.</p>
<p>Herein the work of M. Commont must be
contrasted with that of Professor Rutot. For the gist
of M. Commont's researches lies in the demonstration
of a succession of types from the more perfect to the
less finished, arranged in correspondence with the
superimposed strata of a single locality. A vertical
succession of implements accompanies a similar
sequence of strata.</p>
<p>Professor Rutot examines the Pliocene deposits
in England, Miocene in France and Oligocene in
Belgium, and finds the same Reutelian type in all.
The names Kentian, Cantalian, and Fagnian should
therefore be abandoned, for they are only synonyms
for Pliocene-Reutelian, etc.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span></p>
<p>It is hard to gain an idea of the enormous
duration of human existence thus suggested. But a
diagram (Fig. 24) constructed by Professor Penck<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> is
appended with a view to the graphic illustration of
this subject. The years that have elapsed since the
commencement of the Oligocene period must be
numbered by millions. The human type would be
shewn thus not merely to have survived the Hipparion,
Mastodon and Deinotherium but to have witnessed their
evolution and the parental forms whence they arose.</p>
<p>Such is the principal outcome of the opinions
embodied in the tabulation of Professor Rutot. That
observer is not isolated in his views, though doubtless
their most energetic advocate at the present day.
We must admire the industry which has conferred
upon this subject the support of evidence neither
scanty in amount, nor negligible in weight. But the
court is still sitting, no final verdict being yet within
sight.</p>
<p>While the so-called Eocene eoliths of Duan (Eure-et-Loire)
fail to receive acceptance (Laville<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a>, 1906),
even at Professor Rutot's hands (1911), it is otherwise
with those ascribed to the Oligocene period. Mr Moir<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
of Ipswich has lately recognised prepalaeoliths
beneath the Suffolk Crag (Newbourn) at Ipswich
resting 011 the underlying London Clay.</p>
<p>Some objections to the recognition of the so-called
‘eoliths’ as artefacts may now be considered.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span></p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_24.jpg" width="800" height="74"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_24.jpg" id="img_24.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene time: (From Penck.)</p>
<p>1. Line of oscillation of level of lowest snow-line. (Central Europe.)</p>
<p>2. Localities where ‘eolithic implements’ occur.</p>
<p>3. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of the modern Horse. The
claim of Anchitherium to occupy the position it holds here, is strongly
criticised by Depèret.</p>
<p>4. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of modern Elephants.</p>
<p>The chart is to be read from right to left. The gradual sinking of the snow-line is to be
noticed, and the oscillations of the same line during the Glacial Period are also
shewn (cf. <a href="#img_25.jpg">Fig. 25</a>).</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span></p>
<p>(1) The case of the opponents rests mainly on a
fourfold basis of argument. Thus the nature of the
splintering or chipping is called in question. Some
writers appeal to weathering, others to movements in
the deposits (‘earth-creep,’ and ‘foundering of drifts,’
Warren<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 1905. and Breuil, 1910), and others again to
the concussions experienced by flints in a torrential
rush of water. The last explanation is supported by
observations on the forms of flints removed from
certain rotary machines used in cement-factories
(Boule<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>, 1905).</p>
<p>(2) A second line of opposition impugns the
association of the flints with the strata wherein they
were found, or the geological age of those strata may
be called in question as having been assigned to too
early a period.</p>
<p>(3) Then (in the third place) comes the objection
that the eoliths carry Man's existence too far back;
having regard to the general development of the
larger mammals, Pliocene Man might be accepted,
but ‘Oligocene’ Man is considered incredible. Moreover
the period of time which has elapsed since the
Oligocene period must be of enormous length.</p>
<p>(4) In the last place will be mentioned criticism
of the distribution of the eolithic type (Obermaier<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>,
1908).</p>
<p>(1) Having regard to the first of these arguments,
the balance of evidence appears so even and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span>
level that it is hardly possible to enter judgment on
this alone. But experiments recently carried out by
Mr Moir, and in Belgium by Munck and Ghilain (1907;
cf. Grist[38], 1910) should do much to settle this point.</p>
<p>Moreover the ‘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.</p>
<p>(2) The position of the eoliths and the accuracy
with which their immediate surroundings are determined
may be impugned in some instances, but this
does not apply to Mr Moir's finds at Ipswich, nor to the
Pliocene eoliths found by Mr Grist<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> at Dewlish (1910).</p>
<p>(3) While the general evidence of palaeontology
may be admitted as adverse to the existence of
so highly-evolved a mammal as Man in the earlier
Tertiary epochs, yet the objection is of the negative
order and for this reason it must be discounted to
some extent. If the lapse of time be objected to, Dr
Sturge<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> (1909) is ready to adduce evidence of glacial
action upon even Neolithic flints, and to propose a
base-line for the commencement of the Neolithic
phase no less than 300,000 years ago.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p>
<p>(4) The distribution of the implements finds a
weak spot in the defences of the eolithic partisans.
It is alleged that eoliths are almost always flints:
and that they occur with and among other flints, and
but rarely elsewhere. Palaeoliths (of flint) also
occur among other flints, but they are not thus
limited in their association. This distinction is
admitted by some at least of the supporters of the
‘artefact’ nature of the eoliths, and the admission
certainly weakens their case.</p>
<p>The question is thus far from the point of settlement,
and it may well continue to induce research
and discussion for years to come. That a final
settlement for the very earliest stages is practically
unattainable will be conceded, when the earliest
conditions are recalled in imagination. For when a
human being first employed stones as implements,
natural forms with sharp points or edges would be
probably selected. The first early attempts to
improvise these or to restore a blunted point or edge
would be so erratic as to be indistinguishable (in the
result) from the effects of fortuitous collisions.
While such considerations are legitimately applicable
to human artefacts of Oligocene or Miocene antiquity,
they might well appear to be less effective when
directed to the Pleistocene representatives where signs
of progress might be expected. Yet Professor Rutot
(1911) does not distinguish even the Pleistocene<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span>
Reutelian from the Oligocene (eolithic) forms. If, on such
evidence as this, early Pleistocene Man be recognised,
Oligocene Man must needs be accepted likewise.
Professor Rutot's mode of escape from this difficult
position is interesting and instructive, if not convincing.
It is effected by way of the assumption that
in regard to his handiwork, Man (some say a tool-making
precursor of Man) was in a state of stagnation
throughout the ages which witnessed the rise and
fall of whole genera of other mammals. That this
proposition is untrue, can never be demonstrated.
On the other hand, the proposition may be true, and
therefore the unprejudiced will maintain an open
mind, pending the advent of more conclusive evidence
than has been adduced hitherto.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER V<br />
<span style="font-size: 80%;">HUMAN FOSSILS AND GEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY</span></h2>
<p>In the preceding Chapter, the remains of Palaeolithic
Man were studied in relation to the associated
animals (especially mammals), and again (so far as
possible) in connection with the accompanying implements.
In the comparison of the different types of
implement, evidence was adduced to shew that
certain forms of these are distinctive of corresponding
geological horizons. Of the three series,
(1) human remains, (2) mammalian remains, (3) stone
implements, the first two, (1) and (2), have been
compared as well as (1) and (3). A comparison
between (2) and (3) has now to be instituted. And this
is of interest, for mammalian remains have been found
in the presence of implements where no human bones
could be discovered. Moreover the expectation is well
founded, whereby the mammalian fauna will prove to
supply information unobtainable from either human
skeletons or implements by themselves. That information
will bear upon the climatic conditions of the
different phases which mark the geological history of
Man. And in this way, a more perfect correlation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span>
of the past history of Man with the later geological
history of the earth may be fairly anticipated.</p>
<p>In Chapter IV, use was frequently made of the
expression ‘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.</p>
<p>It is no part of the present work to attempt a
history of the stages through which opinion passed
in developing the conception embodied in the phrase
‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>
knowledge. The late Professor Phillips is believed
to have been the first to make definite use of the
terms ‘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.</p>
<p>But in 1860, this, the accepted view, was overthrown
by the late Dr Falconer<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> at least so far as
the caves (with the exception of the Victoria Cave)
then explored in Britain were concerned. In the
same year, the post-glacial position and antiquity of
various brick-earths and gravels of the Thames
valley were considered to have been definitely
established by the late Professor Prestwich. It is
very important to note in this connection, that the
palaeontological evidence of those brick-earths was
nevertheless held to indicate pre-glacial antiquity
and thus to contradict the evidence of stratigraphy.
The method employed in the latter mode of enquiry
consisted in ascertaining the relation of the
boulder-clay to certain deposits distinguished by
their fauna, the Mollusca being especially employed
in the identifications. Boulder-clay seems, in this
country, to have been taken as the premier indication
of the glacial period; it was supposed to be a
submarine deposit formed during a submergence
of large parts of these islands in the course of that
period. That the late Sir Charles Lyell dwelt upon
the problems of the boulder clay should also be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span>
recalled, for he expressly recounts how constantly it
proved a barrier marking the extreme limit to which
the works of Man could be traced. Implements or
even bones had been found in the drift and above
the boulder-clay, but not below.</p>
<p>For a while no attempt seems to have been made
to subdivide the boulder-clay or to question its exact
identity over all the area occupied by it. Yet such
a subdivision might have resulted in explaining the
contradiction or paradox (curiously analogous to that
propounded by Mr Hinton in 1910, cf. p. <a href="#Page_102">102</a> supra) just
mentioned as existing between the age to be assigned
to the Thames river-drift upon (<i>a</i>) stratigraphical
evidence (‘post-glacial’), and (<i>b</i>) palaeontological
evidence (‘pre-glacial’).</p>
<p>That there might be several deposits of the
boulder-clay with intervening strata, does not appear
to have been suggested. The Glacial period was long
regarded as one and indivisible. By some able
geologists that view is still held.</p>
<p>Yet even in those comparatively early days, some
succession of glaciations was suspected. In 1845,
Ramsay recognised three phases of ice-action in North
Wales. In 1855, Morlot took in hand the work of
charting the extent of several Swiss glaciations. At
last the possibility of a subdivision of the boulder-clay
was realised, and it was demonstrated by the researches
of Sir A. Geikie<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> (1863). But such division of the
boulder-clay leads directly to an inference of successive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span>
periods of deposition—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<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>, by whom account was taken of
the stratigraphical position of stone implements. The
names of these pioneers (and that of Croll should be
added to the list) may be fittingly recalled now that
the names of later continental observers figure so
largely. But the work of Professors Penck, Brückner,
Boule and Obermaier, admirable as it is, may be
regarded justly as an extension or amplification of
pre-existing research.</p>
<p>A multiplicity of glaciations demonstrated whether
by successive ‘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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span>
has been mentioned already (Chapter IV, Sturge,
1909). And thus, whether the series be one of grand
oscillations constituting as many periods, or on the
other hand a sequence of variations too slight to
deserve distinctive terms, the fact of alternations
prolonged over a considerable time seems to be
established. Attempts to correlate various phases in
the history of the animal and particularly of the
human inhabitants of the affected area with these
changes, still remained to be made.</p>
<p>Of such attempts, an early one, if not absolutely
the earliest, stands to the credit of Dr Skertchley
(1878). But in 1888 a much more definite advance
was made by Professor Boule<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>. Still later came the
suggestions of Professors Mortillet, Hoernes<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> (1903),
Penck, Obermaier<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> (1909) and Tornqvist. And the
employment of implements in evidence was found
practicable by them. Ample compensation is thus
provided for the lack of human bones, a deficiency
almost as deplorable in 1911 as it was when Lyell
called attention to it in 1863.</p>
<p>But the literature on this subject is so controversial
and has attained such proportions, that the
attempt to present current views will be limited to
the discussion of the appended table (B). Here an
endeavour has been made to submit the views
expressed by the most competent observers of the
day. The first point to which attention is directed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>
consists in the manner in which the several glacial
periods are distributed over the geological time-table.
Boule claims one glaciation of Pliocene antiquity,
followed by two Pleistocene glaciations. The remaining
authors agree in ascribing all the glaciations
to the Pleistocene period. Herein they follow the
lead of Professor Penck, whose diagram of the
oscillations in level of the snow-line in Central Europe
is reproduced in Fig. 25. In the next place, the fact
that Professor Penck's scheme was primarily intended
to serve for the Swiss Alps must not be overlooked.
That this system should leave traces everywhere
else in Europe is not necessarily implied in accepting
the scheme just mentioned.</p>
<p>In attempting to adjust the scale of glacial periods
to that provided by the succession of implement-forms,
it is suggested that a commencement should be
made by considering the period designated Mousterian.
If the position of the Mousterian period can be
correlated with a definite subdivision of the Ice
Age, then other periods will fall into line almost
mechanically.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="Table_B" id="Table_B">TABLE B</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><i>List of types of associated implements.</i></p>
<table id="p118" summary="Table_B">
<tr>
<td class="td1" valign="middle" rowspan="2">Penck's scheme<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></td>
<td class="td1">1908</td>
<td class="td1">1908</td>
<td class="td1">1903</td>
<td class="td1">1908</td>
<td class="td1">1908</td>
<td class="td3">1878</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td4">Boule<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></td>
<td class="td4">Penck</td>
<td class="td4">Hoernes</td>
<td class="td4">Rutot</td>
<td class="td4">Sollas</td>
<td class="td5">Skertchley<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6">Postglacial <b>4</b> = with Achen and other oscillations (Penck)</td>
<td class="td7">Magdalenian Solutréan<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></td>
<td class="td8">Magdalenian</td>
<td class="td8">—</td>
<td class="td8">Neolithic period</td>
<td class="td8">?</td>
<td class="td9">Neolithic period</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6"><b>Glacial IV</b><br />2nd Pleistocene(2) Glaciation of Boule. “Würmian” of Penck</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td10" valign="top">Solutréan(4)</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td8">Lower Magdalenian<br />Solutréan<br />Aurignacian</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td9" valign="top">Hessle Boulder-clay</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6" valign="top"><i>Interglacial</i> <b>3</b> = Riss-Würm interval (Penck)</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />(Obermaier) Chellean</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />(warm phase)</td>
<td class="td11" valign="top">Mousterian</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />Upper Acheulean</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Acheulean</td>
<td class="td9" valign="top">Palaeoliths of the “modern-valley” type. Valley-gravels of present Ouse, Cam, etc.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6" valign="top"><b>Glacial III</b><br />1st Pleistocene Glaciation of Boule. “Rissian” of Penck</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Chellean</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />(cold phase)</td>
<td class="td11" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Lower Acheulean<br />Chellean</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">[Chalky Boulder-clay of Hoxne]</td>
<td class="td9" valign="top">Purple Boulder-clay</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6" valign="top"><i>Interglacial</i> <b>2</b> = Mindel-Riss interval (Penck)</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Acheulean<br />Obellean</td>
<td class="td10" valign="top">Solutréan</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Strépyan<br />Mesvinian<br />Mafflean</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td9" valign="top">Palaeoliths of “ancient-valley” type. ?Flood-gravels. Valleys do not correspond to modern rivers</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6" valign="top"><b>Glacial II</b><br />“Mindelian” of Penck</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td9" valign="top">Chalky Boulder-clay</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td6" valign="top"><i>Interglacial</i> <b>1</b> = Günz-Mindel interval (Penck)</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">Mousterian<br />Chellean</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td8" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td9" valign="top">Brandon beds with implements</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="td13" valign="top"><b>Glacial I</b><br />“Günzian” of Penck</td>
<td class="td4" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td4" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td4" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td4" valign="top">—</td>
<td class="td4" valign="top">?</td>
<td class="td5" valign="top">Cromer Till. Later than Forest-Bed</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Penck postulates four glaciations, all “pleistocene.”</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Boule recognises two pleistocene glaciations (seemingly Nos. III and IV of Penck), and one pliocene glaciation. The latter is not indicated in the Table.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Skertchley's scheme is now ignored, if not abandoned, by the best authorities. It has been introduced here on account of its historical interest only. Its correlation with the other schemes
is speculative.</p>
<p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> The differences between the rival schemes of Boule, Penck and Hoernes are best realised by comparing the position assigned to the Solutréan industry by each in turn. The löss and
its divisions are not indicated in this Table.</p>
<p>The first enquiry to make is that indicated in the
introductory paragraphs of this Chapter, viz. what
is the general nature of the fauna accompanying
Mousterian implements? Investigation of the records
shews that this is characteristically of a northern or
a temperate, but not a southern type. For the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>
combination commonly regarded as indicative of the
southern type (viz. <i>Elephas antiquus</i>, <i>Rhinoceros
merckii</i>, and <i>Hippopotamus major</i>) is very doubtfully
demonstrable in this association, save in the very
remarkable instance of the Grotte du Prince, Mentone,
and Boule (1906) makes somewhat laboured efforts
to explain this example, which is exceptional in his
opinion. On the other hand, that combination does
occur in well-recognised inter-glacial deposits, <i>e.g.</i> the
Swiss Lignites of Dürnten, etc.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_25.jpg" width="800" height="64"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_25.jpg" id="img_25.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 25. Chart of the oscillations of the snow-level in Central Europe during the Pleistocene
period. (From Penck.)</p>
<p>In the uppermost space. <i>N</i> Neolithic Age. <i>Ma</i> Magdalenian. <i>Sol</i> Solutréan.
<i>Günz</i>, <i>Mindel</i>, <i>Riss</i>, <i>Würm</i>, denote the several glacial phases.</p>
<p>This chart is to be read from right to left; on the extreme right the snow-line is first
shewn 300 m. above its present level. Then it falls to nearly 1200 m. below the present
level, the fall corresponding to the Günzian glaciation. After this it nearly attains its
former level, but does not quite reach the line marked + 300. This chart represents the
part marked Glacial Epoch in Fig. 24, with which it should be compared.</p>
</div>
<p>The Mousterian implements commonly accompany
much more definitely northern animal forms, so that
a glacial rather than an inter-glacial age is indicated.
But there are four such glacial phases from which to
choose in Professor Penck's scheme, and in Professor
Boule's scheme there are two (for the ‘Pliocene
glaciation,’ appearing in the latter, is hardly in
question).</p>
<p>It will be seen (by reference to Table B) that
Professor Boule assigns typical Mousterian implements
to the most recent glacial period (Boule's No. III =
Penck's No. IV = Würm), whereas Professor Penck
places them in his penultimate grand period (Riss),
carrying them down into the succeeding (Riss-Würmian)
inter-glacial period.</p>
<p>Much diligence has been shewn in the various
attempts to decide between these, the two great
alternatives. (The view of Professor Hoernes, who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span>
assigns the Mousterian types to the first inter-glacial
period of Penck, has received so little support as to
render it negligible here.)</p>
<p>Upon an examination of the controversial literature,
the award here given is in favour of Professor
Boule's scheme. The following reasons for this decision
deserve mention.</p>
<p>(1) Almost the only point of accord between the
rival schools of thought, consists in the recognition
by each side that the Magdalenian culture is post-glacial.
But beyond this, the two factions seem to
agree that the Mousterian culture is ‘centred’ on a
glacial period but that it probably began somewhat
earlier and lasted rather longer than that glacial
period, whichever it might be.</p>
<p>(2) The Chellean implements, which precede
those of Mousterian type, are commonly associated
with a fauna of southern affinities. This denotes an
inter-glacial period. Therefore an inter-glacial period
is indicated as having preceded the Mousterian age.
But after the Mousterian age, none of the subsequent
types are associated with a ‘southern fauna.’</p>
<p>Indications are thus given, to the following effect.
The Mousterian position is such that a distinct
inter-glacial period should precede it, and no such
definite inter-glacial period should follow it. The last
glacial period alone satisfies these requirements.
The Mousterian position therefore coincides with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>
last great glaciation, whether we term this the fourth
(with Professor Penck), or the third, with Professor
Boule.</p>
<p>(3) The Mousterian industry characterises a
Palaeolithic settlement at Wildkirchli in Switzerland:
the position of this is indicated with great accuracy
to be just within the zone limited by the moraine
of the last great glacial period (Penck's No. <span class="smcap">IV</span>
or Würmian). The associated fauna is alleged to
indicate that the age is not post-Würmian, as might
be supposed. This station at Wildkirchli probably
represents the very earliest Mousterian culture, and
its history dates from the last phase of the preceding
(<i>i.e.</i> the Riss-Würm) inter-glacial period. But
it belongs to Penck's glaciation No. <span class="smcap">IV</span>, not to
No. <span class="smcap">III</span>.</p>
<p>(4) Discoveries of implements of pre-Mousterian
(Acheulean) form in the neighbourhood of the Château
de Bohun (Ain, Rhone Basin, France, 1889), and
Conliège (Jura, 1908) are accompanied by stratigraphical
evidence whereby they are referred to an
inter-glacial period later than the Riss glaciation
(Penck's No. <span class="smcap">IV</span>, Boule's No. <span class="smcap">III</span>).</p>
<p>The remaining arguments are directed against
the position assigned by Professor Penck to the
Mousterian implements.</p>
<p>(5) Professor Penck admits that the epoch of
the Mousterian type was glacial, and he recognises<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span>
that it was preceded by a definitely inter-glacial
epoch, with a southern fauna. But by selecting
his No. <span class="smcap">III</span> as the glacial period in question he is
led to postulate a subsequent but warmer inter-glacial
subdivision of the Mousterian period. The
difficulty is to find convincing evidence of this
post-Mousterian inter-glacial period, and of the
corresponding ‘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.</p>
<p>To shew how far-reaching some of the discussions
are, attention may be directed to the fact that in this
particular argument, much turns upon the nature of
the implements found with the ‘southern fauna’ at
Taubach (<i>v. ante</i> Chapters II and III). If the implements
are of Mousterian type, they support Professor
Penck's view, for the ‘warm Mousterian’ sought by
him will thus be found: but if the type is Chellean,
the arguments of Professor Boule are notably reinforced.</p>
<p>(6) The position assigned to one stage in the
series of implements will affect all the rest. Professor
Penck's view has been attacked with vigour and also<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span>
with great effect, on account of the position he allots
to the type of Solutré. The consensus of opinion
regarding the position of Solutré (<i>i.e.</i> its typical implements)
is very extensive and quite definite. In
effect, the type of Solutré is assigned to the newer
(<i>jüngerer</i>) löss deposits. But these are also widely
recognised as entirely post-glacial. Moreover in the
last few years, the excavations in these particular
löss-deposits in Lower Austria have not only confirmed
that opinion, but have also revealed there
the presence of Aurignacian implements, which closely
follow those of Mousterian type.</p>
<p>Professor Penck's scheme seems therefore to carry
the Solutréan implements too far back. The attempt
to overcome this objection by attributing an earlier
(? inter-glacial) age to the special variety of löss
in question, has not been attended with conspicuous
success.</p>
<p>Such are the main considerations upon which the
decision has been taken in favour of Professor Boule's
chronological scale. But when such an authority as
Professor Sollas<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> (1908) is undecided, an amateur
must not attempt to ignore the difficulties to be met.
And while it is expedient to arrive at a final
judgment, yet, in these controversies, the tendency is
very marked to allow theory to run too far ahead
of fact. Facts of the following kind are hard to
reconcile with the schemes just described. (i) A<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span>
Mousterian type of implement is recorded by Commont
from the later (younger) löss of the third terrace
at S. Acheul. According to the theory, the type of
Solutré, and not of Le Moustier, should have occurred,
(ii) In this country at least, an admixture of ‘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<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>
(1910) insists upon the occurrence of Chellean,
Acheulean, and Mousterian implements in one and
the same British river deposit.</p>
<p>Consequently the distinction of a northern from a
southern fauna may yet prove to be destitute of sound
foundations. Many years ago, Saporta pointed out
instances of regions with a sub-tropical climate
actually adjacent to glacial areas. This subject
has fortunately now the advantage of the attention
and criticism provided by such talented observers
as Mr Hinton, Professor Laville, and Professor
Schmidt.</p>
<p>A trustworthy scheme of the relative chronology of
culture (as denoted by the forms of implements),
of mammalian variation and evolution (as shewn by
the fauna), and of great climatic oscillations has not
yet been obtained, but it has not been shewn to be
unattainable. Meanwhile the schemes outlined in
Table B mark a very great advance upon their
predecessors.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p>
<p>It may be of interest to note that Professor Penck
believes that the several periods varied both in duration
and in intensity. Their relative proportions are
shewn in Professor Penck's diagram (Fig. 25). The
smaller oscillations, following the close of the last
great glaciation (Würmian), should be noticed.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER VI<br />
<span style="font-size: 80%;">HUMAN EVOLUTION IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCOVERIES</span></h2>
<p>In this, the concluding Chapter, account is taken
of the bearing of the foregoing discoveries and
discussions, in relation with the light which they throw
on the story of human development.</p>
<p>A. Up to a certain point, the evidence is strikingly
favourable to the hypothesis of human evolution. By
this is meant the gradual development of the modern
type of skeleton found in association with a large
and active brain, capable of manifesting its activity
in a great variety of ways. Most of the oldest human
skeletons just described, differ from this type.
Although a difference cannot be demonstrated in
respect of cranial capacity, yet those older skeletons
are usually distinguished by the heavier jaw and by
stout curved limb-bones of such length as to indicate
an almost dwarf stature. Still these indications,
even though marking a more primitive status,
point undeniably to human beings. Passing beyond
these, a few fragments remain to suggest a still
earlier stage in evolution. And with these at least we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span>
find ourselves definitely on the neutral ground between
the territories of man and ape, though even here on
the human side of that zone.</p>
<p>In the same way, and again up to a certain point,
the characters of human implements confirm the
inferences drawn from the skeleton. For the older
implements are re-gressively more and more crude,
and an increasing amount of skill is needed to distinguish
artefact from natural object.</p>
<p>Again, the associated animals seem to become
less familiar, and the percentage of extinct species
increases the further we peer into the stages of the
past.</p>
<p>One of the most remarkable researches ever
published upon these subjects is due to a group
of scientists associated with Professor Berry of
Melbourne University. In this place, only the most
important of their memoirs (1910) can be called in
evidence. In those particular publications, the initial
objective was an attempt to measure the degree of
resemblance between different types of skull. That
endeavour may be roughly illustrated by reference to
Fig. 26, in which tracings of various skull-outlines are
adjusted to a conventional base-line. Should a vertical
line be drawn from the mid-point of the base-line so
as to cut the several contours, the vertical distances
between the successive curves could be measured.
The distance separating Pithecanthropus (<i>P.E.</i> of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>
the figure) from that of the corresponding curve for
the Spy skull No. 1 (Spy 1 of the figure) is clearly less
than the distance between the curves for the second
Spy skull (Spy 2) and the Papuan native.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_26.jpg" width="600" height="419"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_26.jpg" id="img_26.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 26. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a common dimension, viz. the
line <i>Gl</i>—<i>Op</i>, representing a base-line of the brain-case. <i>Pe</i>, Pithecanthropus.
<i>Papua</i>, a New Guinea native. <i>Hl</i>, <i>Sm</i>, <i>At</i> are from skulls of monkeys. (After
Dubois.)</p>
</div>
<p>But Mr Cross used a much more delicate method,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span>
and arrived at results embodied in the figure (27)
reproduced from his memoir. A most graphic
demonstration of those results is provided in this
chart. Yet it must be added, that the Galley Hill
skull, although shewn in an intermediate position,
should almost certainly be nearer the upper limit.
This criticism is based upon the conviction that many
of the measurements upon which the results are
dependent, assign to the Galley Hill skull a lowlier
status than it originally possessed before it became
distorted (posthumously). Again the Pithecanthropus
is apparently nearer to the Anthropoid Apes than to
Mankind of to-day. Let it be noticed however that
this is not necessarily in contradiction with the opinion
expressed above (p. 128 line 2). For Mr Cross' diagram
is based upon cranial measurements, whereas the
characters of the thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus tend
to raise it in the general scale of appreciation. On
the whole then, the evolutionary hypothesis seems to
receive support from three independent sources of
evidence.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_27.jpg" width="228" height="800"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_27.jpg" id="img_27.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 27. (From Cross.)</p>
</div>
<p>B. But if in one of the very earliest of those
stages, a human form is discovered wherein the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]<br />[Pg 132]</a></span>
characters of the modern higher type are almost
if not completely realised, the story of evolution
thus set forth receives a tremendous blow. Such has
been the effect of the discovery of the Galley Hill
skeleton. Time after time its position has been
called ‘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.</p>
<p>Some authors of great experience have refused
to recognise in evidence any claim made on behalf of
the Galley Hill skeleton. Yet it is at least pardonable
to consider some of the aspects of the situation
created by its acceptance.</p>
<p>(i) For instance, the argument is reasonable,
which urges that if men of the Galley Hill type
preceded in point of time the men of the lower
Neanderthal type, the ancestry of the former (Galley
Hill) must be sought at a far earlier period than
that represented by the Galley Hill gravels. As to
this, it may be noted that the extension of the
‘human period,’ suggested by eoliths for which
Pliocene, Miocene, and even Oligocene antiquity is
claimed, will provide more than this argument<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>
demands. The suggestion that a flint-chipping
precursor of Man existed in Miocene time was made
as long ago as 1878 by Gaudry<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a>.</p>
<p>(ii) But if this be so, the significance of the
Neanderthal type of skeleton is profoundly altered.
It is no longer possible to claim only an ‘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.</p>
<p>Again, it is well to enquire whether any other
evidence of degeneration exists in association with
the men of the Neanderthal type. The only other
possible source is that provided by the implements.
This is dangerous ground, but the opinion must
be expressed that there is some reason to believe
that Mousterian implements (which rather than<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span>
any other mark the presence of the Neanderthal
type of skeleton) do present forms breaking the
sequence of implement-evolution. One has but
to examine the material, to become impressed with
the inferiority of workmanship displayed in some
Mousterian implements to that of the earlier
Acheulean types. In any case, a line of evidence is
indicated here, which is not to be overlooked in such
discussions.</p>
<p>(iii) The Galley Hill skeleton has been described
as comparatively isolated. Yet if it be accepted as
a genuine representative of Man in the age of the
gravel-deposits of the high-level terrace, it helps
towards an understanding of the characters of some
other examples. Thus a number of specimens (rejected
by many authors as lacking adequate evidence
of such vast antiquity as is here postulated) appear
now, in this new light, as so many sign-posts pointing
to a greater antiquity of that higher type of human
skeleton than is usually recognised. Above all (to
mention but a few examples), the cranium of Engis,
with those from S. Acheul (discovered in 1861 by Mr H.
Duckworth), and Tilbury, the fragment of a human
skull from gravel at Bury St Edmunds, and a skeleton
discovered near Ipswich beneath the boulder-clay in
October 1911, seem to find their claims enhanced by
the admission of those proffered on behalf of the
Galley Hill specimen. And since Huxley wrote his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span>
memoir on the skulls from Engis and the Neanderthal,
the significance of the former (Engis), fortified
by the characters of the Galley Hill skeleton, has
been greatly increased. Consequently it is not surprising
to find confident appeals to the characters of
a Galley Hill Race or Stock, near associates being
the specimens mentioned in a preceding chapter as
Brünn (1891) and the Aurignac man next to be considered.
The relations of these to the well-known
Cro-Magnon type will be mentioned in the next paragraph.</p>
<p>C. The appearance of the higher type of humanity
in the period next following the Mousterian, viz.
that distinguished by the Aurignacian type of
implement, has now to be discussed. As already
remarked, the man of Aurignac, as compared with
him of the Neanderthal, has less protruding jaws, the
lower jaw in particular being provided with the
rudiment of a chin, while the limb bones are slender
and altogether of the modern type. Upon such
contrasts a remarkable theory has been based by
Professor Klaatsch<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>. He made a comparison between
the anthropoid apes on the one hand, and the two
human types on the other (Fig. 28). As a result, he
pointed out that the Orang-utan differs from the
Gorilla much as the Aurignac does from the
Neanderthal man. Assuming this statement to be
correct, a hypothesis is elaborated to the effect that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span>
two lines of human descent are here in evidence.
Of these one includes an ancestor common to the
Orang-utan (an Asiatic anthropoid ape) and the
Aurignac man; the other is supposed to contain an
ancestor common to the Gorilla (of African habitat),
and the Neanderthal man.</p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_28.jpg" width="397" height="500"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_28.jpg" id="img_28.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 28. Various thigh-bones arranged to shew the alleged similarity
between <i>A</i> Orang-utan and <i>B</i> Aurignac man, as also between
<i>C</i> Neanderthal and <i>D</i> Gorilla. <i>A</i> and <i>B</i>, while resembling each
other, are to be contrasted with <i>C</i> and <i>D</i>. They are referred to
as the A/O and N/G groups. (From Klaatsch.)</p>
</div>
<p>The further development of the story includes
the following propositions. The more primitive and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span>
Gorilla-like Neanderthal type is introduced into
Europe as an invader from Africa. Then (at a
subsequent epoch probably) an Asiatic invasion
followed. The new-comers owning descent from an
Orang-utan-like forerunner are represented by the
Aurignac skeleton and its congeners. In various
respects they represented a higher type not only in
conformation but in other directions. Having mingled
with the Neanderthal tribes, whether by way of
conquest or pacific penetration, a hybrid type
resulted. Such was the origin of the Cro-magnon
race.</p>
<p>The hypothesis has been severely handled, by
none more trenchantly than by Professor Keith<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>. A
notable weakness is exposed in the attribution to the
ancestors of the Orang-utan so close an association
to any human ancestral forms, as Professor Klaatsch
demands. To those familiar with the general anatomy
of the Orang-utan (<i>i.e.</i> the anatomy of parts other
than the skeleton) the difficulties are very apparent.</p>
<p>Another effect of the hypothesis is that the so-called
Neanderthaloid resemblances of the aborigines
of Australia are very largely if not entirely subverted.
This would not matter so much, but for the very
decided stress laid by Professor Klaatsch upon the
significance of those resemblances (cf. Klaatsch, 1909,
p. 579, ‘Die Neanderthalrasse besitzt zahlreiche australoide
Anklänge’). Again in earlier days, Professor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>
Klaatsch supported a view whereby the Australian
continent was claimed as the scene of initial stages
in Man's evolution. Finally, up to the year 1908,
Professor Klaatsch was amongst the foremost of
those who demand absolute exclusion of the Orang-utan
and the Gorilla from any participation in the
scheme of human ancestry.</p>
<p>Having regard to such facts and to such oscillations
of opinion, it is not surprising that this recent
attempt to demonstrate a ‘diphyletic’ or ‘polyphyletic’
mode of human descent should fail to convince
most of those competent to pronounce upon its merits.</p>
<p>Yet with all its defects, this attempt must not be
ignored. Crude as the present demonstration may
be, the possibility of its survival in a modified form
should be taken into account. These reflections (but
not necessarily the theory) may be supported in
various ways. By a curious coincidence, Professor
Keith, in rebutting the whole hypothesis, makes a
statement not irrelevant in this connexion. For he
opines that ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span>
Cossar Ewart and Osborn (and Professor
Ridgeway's name should be added to theirs) agree
that proofs have been obtained of the ‘multiple
nature of horse evolution’ (Osborn). If we pass to
other but allied animals, we may notice that coarser
and finer types of Hipparion (<i>H. crassum</i> and
<i>H. gracile)</i> have been contrasted with each other.
A step further brings us to the Peat-hog problem
(<i>Torf-Schwein Frage</i> of German writers), and in the
discussion of this the more leggy types of swine are
contrasted with the more stocky forms. Owen (in
1846) relied on similar points for distinguishing the
extinct species of Bovidae (Oxen) from one another.
The contrast maybe extended even to the Proboscidea,
for Dr Leith Adams believed that the surest test of
the limb bones of <i>E. antiquus</i> was their stoutness in
comparison with those of <i>E. primigenius</i>. This
is the very character relied upon by Professor
Klaatsch in contrasting the corresponding parts of
the human and ape skeletons concerned. But such
analogies must not be pressed too far. They have
been adduced only with a view to justifying the
contention that the diphyletic scheme of Professor
Klaatsch may yet be modified to such an extent as
to receive support denied to it in its present form.</p>
<p>D. In commenting upon the hypothesis expounded
by Professor Klaatsch, mention was made
of its bearing upon the status of the Cro-Magnon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span>
race. This is but part of a wide subject, viz. the
attempt to trace in descent certain modern European
types. It is necessary to mention the elaborate
series of memoirs now proceeding from the pen of
Dr Schliz<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a>, who postulates four stocks at least as the
parent forms of the mass of European populations
of to-day. Of these four, the Neanderthal type is
regarded as the most ancient. But it is not believed
to have been extirpated. On the contrary its impress
in modern Europe is still recognisable, veiled though
it may be in combination with any of the remaining
three. The latter are designated the Cro-Magnon,
Engis, and Truchère-Grenelle types, the last-mentioned
being broad-headed as contrasted with all the rest.
Of Professor Schliz' work it is hard to express a final
opinion, save that while its comprehensive scope
(without excessive regard to craniometry as such) is
a feature of great value, yet it appears to lack the
force of criticism based upon extensive anatomical,
<i>i.e.</i> osteological study.</p>
<p>E. The remarkable change in Professor Klaatsch's
views on the part played by the anthropoid apes in
human ancestral history has been already mentioned.
In earlier days the Simiidae were literally set aside
by Professor Klaatsch. But although the anthropoid
monkeys have gained an adherent, they still find
their claim to distinction most energetically combated
by Professor Giuffrida-Ruggeri<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a>. The latter declares<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span>
that though he now (1911) repeats his views, it is
but a repetition of such as he, following De
Quatrefages, has long maintained. In this matter
also, the last word will not be said for some time to
come.</p>
<p>F. The significance of the peculiar characters of
massiveness and cranial flattening as presented by
the Neanderthal type of skeleton continues to
stimulate research. In addition to the scattered
remarks already made on these subjects, two recently-published
views demand special notice.</p>
<p>(i) Professor Keith has (1911) been much impressed
with the exuberance of bone-formation, and
the parts it affects in the disease known as Acromegaly.
The disease seems dependent upon an excessive
activity of processes regulated by a glandular body in
the floor of the brain-case (the pituitary gland). The
suggestion is now advanced that a comparatively slight
increase in activity might result in the production of
such ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>
Neanderthal type of man was consequent on a change
in the activity of the pituitary gland.</p>
<p>It is quite possible that the agency to be considered
in the next paragraph, viz. climatic environment, may
play a part in influencing pituitary and other secretions.
But heavy-browed skulls (and heavy brows
are distinctive tests of the glandular activity under
discussion) are not confined to particular latitudes,
so that there are preliminary difficulties to be overcome
in the further investigation of this point. It is
possible that the glandular activity occasionally
assumed pathological intensity even in prehistoric
times. Thus a human skull with Leontiasis ossea
was discovered near Rheims at a depth of fifteen feet
below the level of the surrounding surface.</p>
<p>(ii) Dr Sera<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> (1910) has been led to pay particular
attention to the remarkably flattened cranial vaulting
so often mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
As a rule, this flattening has been regarded as
representative of a stage in the evolution of a
highly-developed type of human skull from a more
lowly, in fact a more simian one. This conclusion
is challenged by Dr Sera. The position adopted is
that a flattened skull need not in every case owe
its presence to such a condition as an early stage in
evolution assigns to it. Environment, for which we
may here read climatic conditions, is a possible and
alternative influence.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span></p>
<p>If sufficient evidence can be adduced to shew
that the flattened cranial arc in the Neanderthal
skull does actually owe its origin to physiological
factors through which environment acts, the status
of that type of skull in the evolutionary sequence
will be materially affected. A successful issue of
the investigation will necessitate a thorough revision
of all the results of Professor Schwalbe's work<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>,
which established the Neanderthal type as a distinct
species (<i>Homo primigenius</i>) followed closely and
not preceded by a type represented by the Gibraltar
skull. Dr Sera commenced with a very minute examination
of the Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull.
In particular, the characters of the face and the
basal parts of the cranium were subjected to
numerous and well-considered tests. As a first
result of the comparison of the parts common to
both crania, Dr Sera believes that he is in a position
to draw correct inferences for the Neanderthal
skull-cap in regard to portions absent from it but
present in the Forbes Quarry skull.</p>
<p>But in the second place, Dr Sera concludes that
the characters in question reveal the fact that of the
two, the Gibraltar skull is quite distinctly the lowlier
form. And the very important opinion is expressed
that the Gibraltar skull offers the real characters
of a human being caught as it were in a lowly stage
of evolution beyond which the Neanderthal skull<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span>
together with all others of its class have already
passed. The final extension of these arguments is
also of remarkable import. The Gibraltar skull is
flattened owing to its low place in evolution. But as
regards the flatness of the brain-case (called the
platycephalic character) of the Neanderthal calvaria
and its congeners (as contrasted with the Gibraltar
specimen), Dr Sera suggests dependence upon the
particular environment created by glacial conditions.
The effect is almost pathological, at least the boundary-line
between such physiological flattening and that
due to pathological processes is hard to draw. Upon
this account therefore, Dr Sera's researches have
been considered here in close association with the
doctrines of Professor Keith.</p>
<p>Dr Sera supports his argument by an appeal to
existing conditions: he claims demonstration of the
association (regarded by him as one of cause and
effect) between arctic latitudes or climate on the
one hand, and the flattening of the cranial vault on
the other. Passing lightly over the Eskimo, although
they stand in glaring contradiction to his view, he
instances above all the Ostiak tribe of hyperborean
Asia. The platycephalic character has a geographical
distribution. Thus the skull is well arched
in Northern Australia, but towards the south, in
South Australia and Tasmania, the aboriginal skull
is much less arched. It is thus shewn to become<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span>
more distinctly platycephalic towards the antarctic
regions, or at least in the regions of the Australian
Continent considered by Professor Penck to have
been glaciated. So too among the Bush natives
of South Africa as contrasted with less southern
types.</p>
<p>The demonstration of a latitudinal distribution in
the New World is complicated by the presence of
the great Cordillera of the Rocky Mountains and
Andes. Great altitudes are held by Dr Sera to possess
close analogy with arctic or antarctic latitudes.
Therefore the presence of flat heads (artificial deformation
being excluded) in equatorial Venezuela is
not surprising.</p>
<p>It is felt that the foregoing statement, though
made with every endeavour to secure accuracy, gives
but an imperfect idea of the extent of Dr Sera's
work. Yet in this place, nothing beyond the briefest
summary is permissible. By way of criticism, it cannot
be too strongly urged that the Eskimo provide a
head-form exactly the converse of that postulated by
Dr Sera as the outcome of ‘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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span>
of the Mousterian period, and so far as evidence
of arctic human surroundings goes, the fauna did
not become less arctic in the Aurignac phase.</p>
<h3><i>Conclusion.</i></h3>
<p>In section A of this chapter, an outline was
given of the mode in which the evolution of the
human form appears to be traceable backwards
through the Neanderthal type to still earlier stages
in which the human characters are so elementary
as to be recognisable only with difficulty.</p>
<p>Then (B) the considerations militating against
unquestioning acquiescence in that view were grouped
in sequence, commencing with the difficulties introduced
by the acceptance (in all its significance) of the
Galley Hill skeleton. From an entirely different
point of view (C), it was shewn that many difficulties
may be solved by the recognition of more than one
primordial stock of human ancestors. Lastly (F) came
the modifications of theory necessitated by appeals
to the powerful influence of physiological factors,
acting in some cases quite obscurely, in others having
relation to climate and food.</p>
<p>The impossibility of summing up in favour of one
comprehensive scheme will be acknowledged. More<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>
research is needed; the flatness of a cranial arc is but
one of many characters awaiting research. At the
present time a commencement is being made with
regard to the shape and proportions of the cavity
bounded by the skull. From such characters we
may aspire to learn something of the brain which
was once active within those walls. Yet to-day the
researches of Professors Keith and Anthony provide
little more than the outlines of a sketch to which
the necessary details can only be added after protracted
investigation.</p>
<p>It is tempting to look back to the time of the
publication of Sir Charles Lyell's ‘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.’</p>
<p>The human fossils at the disposal of those authors
included the Neanderthal, the Engis, and the Denise
bones. With the Neanderthal specimen we have (as
already seen) to associate now a continually increasing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>
number of examples. And (to mention the most
recent discovery only) the Ipswich skeleton (p. 151)
provides in its early surroundings a problem as hard
to solve as those of the Engis skull and the ‘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.</p>
<p>Turning once more to the subject of human remains,
the evolution of educated opinion and the oscillations
of the latter deserve a word of notice. For instance,
in 1863, the Engis skull received its full and due share of
attention. Then in a period marked by the discoveries
at Spy and Trinil, the claims of the Engis fossil fell
somewhat into abeyance. To-day we see them again
and even more in evidence. So it has been with regard
to details. At one period, the amount of brain contained
within the skull of the Neanderthal man was underestimated.
Then that opinion was exchanged for
wonder at the disproportionately large amount of
space provided for the brain in the man of La Chapelle.
The tableau is changed again, and we think less
of the Neanderthal type and of its lowly position
(in evolutionary history). Our thoughts are turned
to a much more extended period to be allotted to
the evolution of the higher types. Adaptations to
climatic influences, the possibilities of degeneracy,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>
of varying degrees of physiological activity, of successful
(though at first aberrant) mutations all
demand attention in the present state of knowledge.</p>
<p>If progress since the foundations were laid by the
giant workers of half a century ago appears slow and
the advance negligible, let the extension of our
recognition of such influences and possibilities be
taken into account. The extraordinarily fruitful
results of excavations during the last ten years may
challenge comparison with those of any other period
of similar duration.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span></p>
<h3>APPENDIX</h3>
<p>The forecast, made when the manuscript of the first impression
of this little book was completed, and in reference to the rapid
accumulation of evidence, has been justified.</p>
<p>While it would be impossible to provide a review of all the
additional literature of the last few months, it is thought reasonable
to append notes on two subjects mentioned previously only
in the preface.</p>
<p>(A) A short account of the ‘La Quina’ skeleton has now
appeared (in ‘L'Anthropologie,’ 1911, No. 6, p. 730).</p>
<p>The skull is of the form described so often above, as distinctive
of the Neanderthaloid type, but the brow-ridges seem even more
massive than in the other examples of that race. The cranial
sutures are unclosed, so that the individual is shewn to be of
mature age, or at any rate, not senile. The teeth are, however,
much worn down. Nearly all the teeth have been preserved in
situ, and they present certain features which have been observed
in the teeth found in Jersey (S. Brélade's Cave).</p>
<p>The skeleton lay in a horizontal position, but no evidence of
an interment has been adduced. The bones were less than a
metre below the present surface, and in a fine mud-like deposit,
apparently ancient, and of a river-bed type. Implements were
also found, and are referred unhesitatingly to the same horizon
as the bones. The Mousterian period is thus indicated, but no
absolutely distinctive implements were found. The general
stratigraphical conditions are considered to assign the deposit to
the base of what is termed the ‘inferior Mousterian’ level.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span></p>
<p>(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. <a href="#img_29.jpg">fig. 29</a>).</p>
<p>Save in one respect, the skeleton is not essentially different
from those of the existing representatives of humanity. The
exception is provided by the shin-bone. That of the right
limb has been preserved, and it presents an anomaly unique in
degree, if not in kind, viz.: the substitution of a rounded for a
sharp or keel-like edge to the front of the bone. It can hardly be
other than an individual peculiarity, though the Spy tibia (No. 1)
suggests (by its sectional contour) the same conformation.</p>
<p>So far as the skeleton is concerned, even having regard to the
anomaly just mentioned, there is no good reason for assigning the
Ipswich specimen to a separate racial type.</p>
<p>Its interest depends largely upon the circumstances of its
surroundings. It was placed beneath about four feet of ‘boulder-clay,’
embedded partly in this and, to a much smaller extent, in
the underlying middle-glacial sand which the bones just entered.</p>
<p>There is some evidence that the surface on which the bones
lay was at one time exposed as an old ‘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.</p>
<p>Several alternatives to this rather problematical interpretation
could be suggested. The most obvious of these is that we have
to deal here with a neolithic interment, in a grave of which the
floor just reached the middle-glacial sand of the locality. If we
enquire what assumptions are requisite for the adoption of this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span>
particular alternative, we shall find, I think, that they are not
very different in degree from those which are entailed by the
supposition that the skeleton is really that of ‘sub-boulder-clay’
man.</p>
<p>The contracted attitude of the skeleton, and our familiarity of
this as a feature of neolithic interments, taken together with the
fact that the skeleton does not differ essentially from such as
occur in interments of that antiquity, are points in favour of the
neolithic age of the specimen. On the other hand, Mr Moir would
urge that man certainly existed in an age previous to the deposition
of the boulder-clay; that the implements discovered in that
stratum support this claim; that the recent discovery of the bones
of a mammoth on the same horizon (though not in the immediate
vicinity) provides further support; that the state of mineralisation
of the bones was the same in both cases, and that it is at least
significant that they should be found on strata shewn (by other
evidence) to have once formed a ‘land-surface.’</p>
<p>On the whole then, the view adopted here is, that the onus of
proof rests at present rather with those who, rejecting these claims
to the greater antiquity of this skeleton, assign it to a far later
date than that to which even the overlying Boulder-clay is referred.
And, so far as the literature is at present available, the rejection
does not seem to have been achieved with a convincing amount
of certainty.</p>
<p>It is to be remarked, finally, that this discovery is entirely
distinct from those made previously by Mr Moir in the deposits
beneath the Red Crag of Suffolk, with which his name has become
associated.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span></p>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/img_29.jpg" width="508" height="600"
alt="see caption"
title="see caption" />
<a name="img_29.jpg" id="img_29.jpg"></a>
<p class="caption">Fig. 29. Human skeleton found beneath Boulder-clay near Ipswich in 1911.
(From the drawing prepared by Professor Keith, and published in the
<i>East Anglian Daily Times</i>. Reproduced with permission.)</p>
</div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span></p>
<h3>REFERENCES TO LITERATURE</h3>
<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER I</p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Dubois, 1894. Pithecanthropus, ein Übergangsform, &c.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Blanckenhorn, 1910. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Band 42, S.
337.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Schwalbe, 1899. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.
From 1899 onwards.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Berry, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
<span class="smcap">XXXI.</span> Part 1. 1910.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Cross, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
<span class="smcap">XXXI.</span> Part 1. 1910.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Schoetensack, 1908. Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Keith, 1911. Lancet, March 18, 1911, abstract of the Hunterian
Lectures.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Dubois, 1896. Anatomischer Anzeiger. Band <span class="smcap">XII.</span> S. 15.</p></div>
<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTERS II AND III</p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Avebury (Lubbock), 1868. International Congress for Prehistoric
Archaeology.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Turner, 1864 (quoting Busk). Quarterly Journal of Science,
Oct. 1864, p. 760.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Nehring, 1895. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1895, S. 338.</p></div>
<div class="footnote">
<p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Kramberger, 1899. Mittheilungen der anthropologischen
Gesellschaft zu Wien. “Der Mensch von Krapina.” Wiesbaden,
1906.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Marett, Archaeologia, 1911; also Keith, 1911. Nature, May
25, 1911. Keith and Knowles, Journal of Anatomy, 1911.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Boule, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XIX.</span> p. 519.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Klaatsch and Hauser, 1908. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band
35, 1909, p. 287.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Peyrony (and Capitan), 1909-1910. Bulletins de la Société
d'Anthropologie de Paris, Jan. 20, 1910.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Sollas, 1907. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
Vol. 199 <span class="smcap">B</span>.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Sera, 1909. Atti della Società romana di Antropologia, xv.
fasc. <span class="smcap">II.</span></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Verner, 1910. Ann. Rep. Hunterian Museum. R.C.S.
London. Saturday Review, Sep. 16, 1911, and five following
numbers.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Verneau, 1906. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XVII.</span></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Lehmann-Nitsche, 1907. Rivista del Museo de la Plata, <span class="smcap">XIV.</span>
1907.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Lehmann-Nitsche, 1909. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift,
Jena, <span class="smcap">VIII.</span> 42.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Klaatsch, 1909. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, <span class="smcap">I.</span></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Newton, 1895. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,
August, 1895.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Schwalbe, 1906. “Der Schädel von Brüx.” Zeitsch. für Morphologie
und Anthropologie.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Hinton, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association.
Vol. <span class="smcap">XXI.</span> Part 10. 1910.</p></div>
<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER IV</p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Gaudry, 1888. Les ancêtres de nos animaux.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Schmidt, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, S. 62,
1909.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Commont, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XIX.</span> p. 527.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Obermaier and Bayer, 1909. Korrespondenzblatt der Wiener
anthropologischen Gesellschaft, <span class="smcap">XL.</span> 9/12.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Rutot, 1900. Congrès international d'Archéologie préhistorique.
Paris, 1900.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><span class="label">[31]</span> Rutot, 1904, ?1903. Quoted in Schwalbe 1906. “Vorgeschichte,
usw.” Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><span class="label">[31]</span> Rutot, 1911. Revue de l'Université. Brussels, 1911.</p></div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span></p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Penck, 1908. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Band <span class="smcap">XL.</span> S. 390.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Laville, 1910. Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris,
1910.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Moir, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, July 16,
1910. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 1911.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Warren, 1905. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
Vol. <span class="smcap">XXXV.</span>, 1905, p. 337.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Boule, 1905. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XVI.</span> “Sur l'origine des
Eolithes.”</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Obermaier, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XIX.</span> p. 613 (abstract),
also p. 460 (abstract).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Grist, 1910. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
Vol. <span class="smcap">XL.</span> 1910, p. 192.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Sturge, 1909. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, January 1909
(published in 1911).</p></div>
<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER V</p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Falconer. 1865. Collected Memoirs. Vol. <span class="smcap">II.</span> p. 587.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> Geikie, A. 1863. Text-book of Geology, 1903, p. 1312 and
footnote <i>ibidem</i>.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Skertchley, 1878. The Fenland, p. 551.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Boule, 1888. Revue d'Anthropologie, “Essai de stratigraphie
humaine.”</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Hoernes, 1903. Urgeschichte des Menschen. (2nd Edn., 1908.)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Obermaier, 1909. L'Anthropologie. Tome <span class="smcap">XX.</span> p. 521.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Sollas, 1908. Science Progress in the XXth Century, “Palaeolithic
Man.” (Reprinted in book-form, 1911.)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Boyd Dawkins, 1910. Huxley Lecture. Royal Anthropological
Institute, 1911.</p></div>
<p style="text-align: center;">CHAPTER VI</p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Gaudry, 1878. Mammifères tertiaires.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Klaatsch, 1909. Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Band <span class="smcap">I.</span></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Keith, 1911. Nature, Feb. 16, 1911 ... also Dec. 15, 1910.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Schliz, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, Ss. 239 et seq.
“Die vorgeschichtlichen Schädeltypen der deutschen Länder.”</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la
Etnologia, <span class="smcap">XL.</span> 2.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Sera, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la Etnologia, <span class="smcap">XL.</span>
fasc. 3/4.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Schwalbe, 1906. “Vorgeschichte des Menschen,” Zeitschrift
für Morphologie und Anthropologie.</p></div>
<h3><i>Recent publications containing a summary of the latest discoveries.</i></h3>
<p>Birkner. Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns. Bd <span class="smcap">XVII.</span> 3/4. 1909.</p>
<p>Branco. Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, 1910.</p>
<p>Buttel-Reepen. Aus dem Werdegang der Menschheit. 1911.</p>
<p>Giuffrida-Ruggeri. “Applicazioni, &c.” Monitore Zoologico
Italiano. No. 2. 1910. Rivista d'Italia. Agosto, 1911.</p>
<p>Keith. Hunterian Lectures, 1911. Ancient types of Mankind, 1911.</p>
<p>Kohlbrugge. Die morphologische Abstammung des Menschen, 1908.</p>
<p>Lankester. The Kingdom of Man. 1906.</p>
<p>Leche. Der Mensch. 1911.</p>
<p>McCurdy. “The Antiquity of Man in Europe.” Smithsonian
Report (1909), p. 531. 1910.</p>
<p>Read and Smith, R. A. Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone
Age. British Museum, 1911.</p>
<p>Rutot. Revue de l'Université. Bruxelles, January 1911.</p>
<p>Schwalbe. Darwin and Modern Science (Centenary volume), Cambridge, 1909.</p>
<p>Sollas. Palaeolithic Man. (Cf. No. 46 supra.) 1911.</p>
<p>Spulski. Zentralblatt für Zoologie. Band 17. Nos. 3/4. 1910.</p>
<p>Wright. Hunterian Lectures, Royal College of Surgeons, 1907.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span></p>
<h3>INDEX</h3>
<ul>
<li>Acheulean type of implement, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>; <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Acheul">S. Acheul</a></li>
<li>Acromegaly, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
<li>Adloff, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Ameghino, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Andalusia, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
<li>Andaman islands, aborigines of, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
<li>Anthony, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
<li><a name="Ape" id="Ape">Anthropoid Ape</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Gorilla">Gorilla</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#Orang">Orang-utan</a>), <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
<li>Arctomys, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Atlas vertebra, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Aurignac, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>; implements of the type of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>; skeleton from,
<a href="#Page_135">135–138</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>; <i>v. also</i> <a href="#aurignacensis"><i>Homo aurignacensis hauseri</i></a></li>
<li>Australian aborigines, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Avebury, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Badger, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Baradero, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Bayer, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li>Berry, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li>
<li>Bison <i>priscus</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>; (species unknown), <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Blanckenhorn (on Trinil strata), <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
<li>Bos (? species), <a href="#Page_72">72</a>; <a name="Bos" id="Bos"><i>primigenius</i></a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Urus">Urus</a>), <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li>
<li>Boulder-clay, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
<li>Boule, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li>Brain, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37–39</a></li>
<li>Brain-case (as distinct from the face), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60–62</a></li>
<li>Branco, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Breuil, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li>
<li>Brow-ridges, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Brückner, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li>Brünn, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
<li>Brüx, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>; strata, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li>Bury S. Edmunds, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
<li>Bush Race (South African aborigines), <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
<li>Busk, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Canine fossa (of face), <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>Cave Bear, <i>v.</i> Ursus</li>
<li>Cave Hyaena, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
<li><a name="Cervidae" id="Cervidae">Cervidae</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Stag">Stag</a>), <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li>Chelles, implements, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
<li>Classification of human fossil remains, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>; also <a href="#Table_A">Table A</a></li>
<li>Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li>Commont, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>Corrèze (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Chapelle">La Chapelle</a>), <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
<li>Cranial base, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
<li>Croll, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li>Cro-Magnon, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
<li>Cromer, forest-bed fauna, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Cross, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130–132</a> (diagram, p. <a href="#Page_131">131</a>)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span></li>
<li>Cyrena <i>fluminalis</i>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Dawkins, Boyd, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>de Bohun, château, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
<li>Dénise, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li>Dewlish, eoliths from, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
<li>Dolichocephalic proportions of skull, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li>Dordogne, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#mousteriensis"><i>H. mousteriensis hauseri</i></a></li>
<li>Duan, Eocene eoliths, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Dubois, references under <a href="#Pithecanthropus"><i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i></a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Elephas <i>antiquus</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88–90</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>; <i>meridionalis</i>,
<a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>; <i>primigenius</i> <i>v.</i> <a href="#Mammoth">Mammoth</a></li>
<li>Engis, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li>Eocene period, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Eoliths, <a href="#Page_106">106–111</a></li>
<li>Erect attitude, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Falconer, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
<li><a name="Quarry" id="Quarry">Forbes Quarry</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Gibraltar">Gibraltar</a>), <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46–49</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
<li>Forest-bed, <i>v.</i> Cromer</li>
<li>Frizzi, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li><a name="Galley" id="Galley">Galley Hill</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>; gravel pit, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>; skeleton, <a href="#Page_56">56–59</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130–132</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
<li>Gaudry, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Geikie, Sir A., <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
<li>Geikie, J., <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li>Germany, caves in, <a href="#Page_95">95–98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Ghilain, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
<li><a name="Gibraltar" id="Gibraltar">Gibraltar</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Quarry">Forbes Quarry</a>), <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46–49</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143–144</a></li>
<li>Giuffrida-Ruggeri, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
<li><a name="Gorilla" id="Gorilla">Gorilla</a> (<i>v.</i> <a href="#Ape">Anthropoid Ape</a>), <a href="#Page_136">136–138</a></li>
<li><a name="Grimaldi" id="Grimaldi">Grimaldi</a> (<i>v. also</i> <a href="#Enfants">Grotte des Enfants</a>), <a href="#Page_50">50–52</a></li>
<li><a name="Enfants" id="Enfants">Grotte des Enfants</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76–79</a></li>
<li>Grotte du Prince, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li>Günz, glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Hauser, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>: <i>v.</i> <a href="#Homo">Homo</a></li>
<li>Heidelberg, <i>v.</i> <a href="#heidelbergensis"><i>Homo heidelbergensis</i></a></li>
<li>High-level terrace gravels (of Thames), <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
<li>Hinton, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101–104</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>Hippopotamus, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li>Hoernes, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li><a name="Homo" id="Homo">Homo</a> <a name="aurignacensis" id="aurignacensis"><i>aurignacensis hauseri</i></a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135–138</a>; <i>fossilis</i>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;
<a name="heidelbergensis" id="heidelbergensis"><i>heidelbergensis</i></a>, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10–16</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41–43</a>; <a name="mousteriensis" id="mousteriensis"><i>mousteriensis
hauseri</i></a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39–45</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>; <i>neogaeus</i>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53–55</a>; <i>primigenius</i>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
<li>Horse, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Huxley, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Ibex, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Implements, sequence of, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Interglacial phases, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a>, <a href="#Table_B">Table B</a></li>
<li>Ipswich skeleton, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151–152</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Jalón river (Aragon) implements, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Jawbone, <a href="#Page_11">11–16</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29–31</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41–43</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Jersey, <i>v.</i> <a href="#Brelade">S. Brélade</a></li>
<li>Julien, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Keith, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
<li>Klaatsch, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>; <i>diphyletic theory</i>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span></li>
<li>Kramberger, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Krapina, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24–31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68–71</a>; <i>fauna</i>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li><a name="Chapelle" id="Chapelle">La Chapelle-aux-Saints</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33–39</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
<li>La Ferrassie, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
<li>Laloy, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>La Naulette, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, and <a href="#img_14.jpg">fig. 14</a></li>
<li>La Quina, preface, <a href="#Page_vi">vi</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li>
<li>Laville, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>Lehmann-Nitsche, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Le Mas d'Azil, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li>
<li>Le Moustier, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>; <i>cave</i>, <a href="#Page_73">73–75</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Mousterian">Mousterian</a></li>
<li>Leontiasis <i>ossea</i>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li>
<li>Levallois, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
<li>Limb bones, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>Löss, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>; in Lower Austria, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Lyell, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Macnamara, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li>
<li>Maffle, implements of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>Magdalenian period, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
<li>Malarnaud, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
<li><a name="Mammoth" id="Mammoth">Mammoth</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li>Manouvrier, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
<li>Marett, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Marmot, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Mastoid process, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>Mauer, <i>v. also</i> <a href="#heidelbergensis"><i>H. heidelbergensis</i></a>, <a href="#Page_65">65–66</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li>Mentone, <i>v.</i> <a href="#Grimaldi">Grimaldi</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#Enfants">Grotte des Enfants</a></li>
<li><a name="Mimomys" id="Mimomys">Mimomys</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
<li>Mindel, glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
<li>Miocene period, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Moir, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
<li>Monte Hermoso, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Morlot, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
<li>Mortillet, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li><a name="Mousterian" id="Mousterian">Mousterian period</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121–125</a>; <i>types of implement of</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94–98</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
<li>Munck, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
<li>Mural decorative art in caves, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Neanderthal, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34–36</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131–138</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li>Negroid characters, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
<li>Nehring, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
<li>Neolithic implements, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
<li>Newton, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li>New World, <i>v.</i> <a href="#America">S. America</a></li>
<li>Nicolle, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Northfleet, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>: <i>v.</i> <a href="#Galley">Galley Hill</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Obermaier, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Ofnet, <a href="#Page_96">96–98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Oligocene period, implements in, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li>
<li><a name="Orang" id="Orang">Orang-utan</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136–138</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Ape">Anthropoid Ape</a></li>
<li>Ostiaks, cranial form, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Pech de l'Aze, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Penck, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116–124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li>Peyrony, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
<li><a name="Pithecanthropus" id="Pithecanthropus"><i>Pithecanthropus erectus</i></a>, <a href="#Page_1">1–9</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63–65</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
<li>Pituitary gland and secretion, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li>
<li>Pleistocene mammals and period, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>
<li>Pliocene strata, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Prestwich, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
<li>Prince of Monaco, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Prognathism, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Pruner-Bey, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
<li>Pygmy types of mankind, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Ramsay, <a href="#Page_115">115</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span></li>
<li>Reindeer, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73–75</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li>Rhinoceros <i>etruscus</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87–89</a>; <i>megarhinus</i>, <a href="#Page_87">87–89</a>; <i>merckii</i>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>,
<a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>; <i>tichorhinus</i>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li>Riss, glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
<li>River-drift, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
<li>Ronda, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
<li>Roth, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
<li>Rutot, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102–107</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li><a name="Acheul" id="Acheul">S. Acheul</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
<li><a name="Brelade" id="Brelade">S. Brélade</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Table_A">Table A</a></li>
<li>Saporta, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>Schliz, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
<li>Schmidt, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>Schoetensack, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Schwalbe, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
<li>Scott, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Sera, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46–48</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142–146</a></li>
<li>Sinel, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Sirgenstein, <a href="#Page_96">96–98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Skeletons, contracted position of, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
<li>Skertchley, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Sollas, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Solutré-period and implements of, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li><a name="America" id="America">South America</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52–55</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79–81</a></li>
<li>Southern fauna, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>Spy cave-men, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
<li><a name="Stag" id="Stag">Stag</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>: <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Cervidae">Cervidae</a></li>
<li>Stature, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
<li>Steinmann, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Stone implements, value in evidence, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
<li>Strépy, implements of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>Sturge, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Suidae, <i>v.</i> Swine</li>
<li>Swine, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Taubach, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21–23</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>; <i>fauna</i>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>; <i>implements</i>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Teeth, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21–23</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29–31</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Tertiary mollusca, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Tetraprothomo, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Thames gravels, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
<li>Tilloux, implements and fauna of, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Tornqvist, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Trinil, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <i>v. also</i> <a href="#Pithecanthropus"><i>P. erectus</i></a></li>
<li>Trogontherium, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
<li>Turner, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Ursus <i>arctos</i>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>; <i>arvernensis</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>; <i>deningeri</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;
<i>spelaeus</i>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li>
<li><a name="Urus" id="Urus">Urus</a>, <i>v.</i> <a href="#Bos"><i>Bos primigenius</i></a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Venezuela, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
<li>Verneau, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
<li>Verner, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
<li>Voles, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>; <i>v.</i> <a href="#Mimomys">Mimomys</a></li>
<li> </li>
<li>Walkhoff, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Warren, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li>
<li>Weiss, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>Wildkirchli, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
<li>Wolf, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Würm: glacial phase of, <a href="#img_25.jpg">119</a></li>
<li>Württemburg, caverns of, <a href="#Page_95">95–98</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
</ul>
<hr class="hr95" />
<p style="text-align: center;">CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.</p>
<hr class="hr95" />
<p class="title"><span style="font-size: 150%;">THE<br />CAMBRIDGE MANUALS</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 125%;">OF SCIENCE AND LITERATURE</span></p>
<p>Published by the Cambridge University Press under
the general editorship of P. Giles, Litt.D., Master of
Emmanuel College, and A. C. Seward, F.R.S., Professor
of Botany in the University of Cambridge.</p>
<p style="border: 1px solid black;">A series of handy volumes dealing with a wide
range of subjects and bringing the results of modern
research and intellectual activity within the reach
both of the student and of the ordinary reader.</p>
<p class="title" style="font-size: 1.25em;">80 VOLUMES NOW READY</p>
<p class="u">HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>42 Ancient Assyria. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.</p>
<p>51 Ancient Babylonia. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.</p>
<p>40 A History of Civilization in Palestine. By Prof. R. A. S.
Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
<p>78 The Peoples of India. By J. D. Anderson, M.A.</p>
<p>49 China and the Manchus. By Prof. H. A. Giles, LL.D.</p>
<p>79 The Evolution of Modern Japan. By J. H. Longford.</p>
<p>43 The Civilization of Ancient Mexico. By Lewis Spence.</p>
<p>60 The Vikings. By Prof. Allen Mawer, M.A.</p>
<p>24 New Zealand. By the Hon. Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G.,
LL.D., and J. Logan Stout, LL.B. (N.Z.).</p>
<p>76 Naval Warfare. By J. R. Thursfield, M.A.</p>
<p>15 The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church. By A.
Hamilton Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
<p>16 The Historical Growth of the English Parish Church. By
A. Hamilton Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
<p>68 English Monasteries. By A. H. Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.</p>
<p>50 Brasses. By J. S. M. Ward, B.A., F.R.Hist.S.</p>
<p>59 Ancient Stained and Painted Glass. By F. S. Eden.</p>
<p>80 A Grammar of Heraldry. By W. H. St J. Hope, Litt.D.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">ECONOMICS</p>
<blockquote>
<p>70 Copartnership in Industry. By C. R. Fay, M.A.</p>
<p>6 Cash and Credit. By D. A. Barker.</p>
<p>67 The Theory of Money. By D. A. Barker.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">LITERARY HISTORY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>8 The Early Religious Poetry of the Hebrews. By the Rev.
E. G. King, D.D.</p>
<p>21 The Early Religious Poetry of Persia. By the Rev. Prof.
J. Hope Moulton, D.D., D.Theol. (Berlin).</p>
<p>9 The History of the English Bible. By John Brown, D.D.</p>
<p>12 English Dialects from the Eighth Century to the Present
Day. By W. W. Skeat, Litt.D., D.C.L., F.B.A.</p>
<p>22 King Arthur in History and Legend. By Prof. W. Lewis
Jones, M.A.</p>
<p>54 The Icelandic Sagas. By W. A. Craigie, LL.D.</p>
<p>23 Greek Tragedy. By J. T. Sheppard, M.A.</p>
<p>33 The Ballad in Literature. By T. F. Henderson.</p>
<p>37 Goethe and the Twentieth Century. By Prof. J. G.
Robertson, M.A., Ph.D.</p>
<p>39 The Troubadours. By the Rev. H. J. Chaytor, M.A.</p>
<p>66 Mysticism in English Literature. By Miss C. F. E.
Spurgeon.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION</p>
<blockquote>
<p>4 The Idea of God in Early Religions. By Dr F. B. Jevons.</p>
<p>57 Comparative Religion. By Dr F. B. Jevons.</p>
<p>69 Plato: Moral and Political Ideals. By Mrs J. Adam.</p>
<p>26 The Moral Life and Moral Worth. By Prof. Sorley, Litt.D.</p>
<p>3 The English Puritans. By John Brown, D.D.</p>
<p>11 An Historical Account of the Rise and Development of
Presbyterianism in Scotland. By the Rt Hon. the
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, K.T., G.C.M.G.</p>
<p>41 Methodism. By Rev. H. B. Workman, D.Lit.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">EDUCATION</p>
<blockquote>
<p>38 Life in the Medieval University. By R. S. Rait, M.A.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">LAW</p>
<blockquote>
<p>13 The Administration of Justice in Criminal Matters (in
England and Wales). By G. Glover Alexander, M.A.,
LL.M.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">BIOLOGY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>1 The Coming of Evolution. By Prof. J. W. Judd, C.B., F.R.S.</p>
<p>2 Heredity in the Light of Recent Research. By L. Doncaster,
M.A.</p>
<p>25 Primitive Animals. By Geoffrey Smith, M.A.</p>
<p>73 The Life-story of Insects. By Prof. G. H. Carpenter.</p>
<p>48 The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. By J. S. Huxley,
B.A.</p>
<p>27 Life in the Sea. By James Johnstone, B.Sc.</p>
<p>75 Pearls. By Prof. W. J. Dakin.</p>
<p>28 The Migration of Birds. By T. A. Coward.</p>
<p>36 Spiders. By C. Warburton, M.A.</p>
<p>61 Bees and Wasps. By O. H. Latter, M.A.</p>
<p>46 House Flies. By C. G. Hewitt, D.Sc.</p>
<p>32 Earthworms and their Allies. By F. E. Beddard, F.R.S.</p>
<p>74 The Flea. By H. Russell.</p>
<p>64 The Wanderings of Animals. By H. F. Gadow, F.R.S.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">ANTHROPOLOGY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>20 The Wanderings of Peoples. By Dr A. C. Haddon, F.R.S.</p>
<p>29 Prehistoric Man. By Dr W. L. H. Duckworth.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">GEOLOGY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>35 Rocks and their Origins. By Prof. Grenville A. J. Cole.</p>
<p>44 The Work of Rain and Rivers. By T. G. Bonney, Sc.D.</p>
<p>7 The Natural History of Coal. By Dr E. A. Newell Arber.</p>
<p>30 The Natural History of Clay. By Alfred B. Searle.</p>
<p>34 The Origin of Earthquakes. By C. Davison, Sc.D., F.G.S.</p>
<p>62 Submerged Forests. By Clement Reid, F.R.S.</p>
<p>72 The Fertility of the Soil. By E. J. Russell, D.Sc.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">BOTANY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>5 Plant-Animals: a Study in Symbiosis. By Prof. F. W.
Keeble.</p>
<p>10 Plant-Life on Land. By Prof. F. O. Bower, Sc.D., F.R.S.</p>
<p>19 Links with the Past in the Plant-World. By Prof. A. C.
Seward, F.R.S.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">PHYSICS</p>
<blockquote>
<p>52 The Earth. By Prof. J. H. Poynting, F.R.S.</p>
<p>53 The Atmosphere. By A. J. Berry, M.A.</p>
<p>65 Beyond the Atom. By John Cox, M.A.</p>
<p>55 The Physical Basis of Music. By A. Wood, M.A.</p>
<p>71 Natural Sources of Energy. By Prof. A. H. Gibson, D.Sc.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">PSYCHOLOGY</p>
<blockquote>
<p>14 An Introduction to Experimental Psychology. By Dr C. S.
Myers.</p>
<p>45 The Psychology of Insanity. By Bernard Hart, M.D.</p>
<p>77 The Beautiful. By Vernon Lee.</p></blockquote>
<p class="u">INDUSTRIAL AND MECHANICAL SCIENCE</p>
<blockquote>
<p>31 The Modern Locomotive. By C. Edgar Allen, A.M.I.Mech.E.</p>
<p>56 The Modern Warship. By E. L. Attwood.</p>
<p>17 Aerial Locomotion. By E. H. Harper, M.A., and Allan
E. Ferguson, B.Sc.</p>
<p>18 Electricity in Locomotion. By A. G. Whyte, B.Sc.</p>
<p>63 Wireless Telegraphy. By Prof. C. L. Fortescue, M.A.</p>
<p>58 The Story of a Loaf of Bread. By Prof. T. B. Wood, M.A.</p>
<p>47 Brewing. By A. Chaston Chapman, F.I.C.</p></blockquote>
<p>“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.”—<i>Spectator</i></p>
<p>“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.”—<i>School World</i></p>
<hr class="hr65" />
<p style="text-align: center;">Cambridge University Press<br />C. F. Clay, Manager<br />
LONDON: Fetter Lane. E.C.<br />EDINBURGH: 100 Princes Street</p>
<hr class="hr95" />
<div class="note">
<p>Transcriber's Notes:</p>
<p>The original spelling and minor inconsistencies in the spelling and
formatting have been maintained.</p>
<p>Inconsistent hyphenation and accents are as in the original if not marked
as a misprint.</p>
<p>The table below lists all corrections applied to the original text.</p>
<table summary="corrections">
<tr><td>p. 9: to be justified, → to be justified.</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 42: Fig 14. → Fig. 14.</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 71: (Corrèze) → (<i>Corrèze</i>)</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 72: (Corrèze). [From Boule.] → (From Boule.)</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 73: (Dordogne) → (<i>Dordogne</i>)</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 74: implements were scattered → scattered.</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 79: in the preceding chapter, → chapter</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 110: from the effects of fortuitious → fortuitous</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 136: as also between <i>N</i> → <i>C</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 154: Band <span class="smcap">XII,</span> s. 15. → Band <span class="smcap">XII.</span> S. 15.</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 154: für Ethnologie, 1895, s. 338. → S. 338.</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 155: für Anthropologie. Band 35, s. 62 → S. 62</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 156: für Ethnologie. Band <span class="smcap">XL.</span> s. 390 → S. 390</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 156: 2nd Edn → Edn.</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 156: Sollas 1908 → Sollas, 1908</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 157: Die morphologische Abstämmung → Abstammung</td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 158: v. also → <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 159: v. also → <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 159: Heidelberg, v. → Heidelberg, <i>v.</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 160: v. also → <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 161: v. also → <i>v. also</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 161: Urus, v. → Urus, <i>v.</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>p. 166: By A. Wood, M.A → M.A.</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44331 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
|
