Prehistoric Man

od claims to that most interesting position, viz. an intermediat

have been regarded as differing from all other human types to such an extent as to justify their segregation in a

he 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 repr

ithic antiquity can undoubtedly be assigned. The very numerous works relating to prehistoric man are full of d

stial form of humanity. Support is provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but in regard to the latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct from presumption) is unfortunately lacking. Further confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry skull from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that of the Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk and Sir William Turner[10] as long ago as 1864, the specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in that of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the geological or archaeological horizon is lamentably defective. After a lapse of some twenty years, the discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium, undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of Mammoth, threw a flood of light on the subject, and enormously enhanced the significance of the earlier discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a human type, different

Literary ref

1895 Neh

899 Kramb

e 1910-11

aints 1908 Marett

aatsch[15] "Homo mo

sie 1909

Aze 1909 P

-1909 Sollas[17] S

a 1910 V

ts 1902-06 Verne

. Roth) Lehmann-

mann-Nitsche (1909)

laatsch[23] "Homo au

95 Newton[24]

ed out in late years. And herein, prominence will be given in the first place to such human remains as are assignable to the lowlier human type repr

the locality in which they were made. Those selected fo

in Sax

ndeed 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 i

t lower molar tooth from Taubach. The letters

ponding tooth (cf. Fig. 3) of a Chimpanzee

fer distinction upon the tooth. Its chief claim to notice is based upon its relative narrowness from side to side. That narrowness (proportion of transverse to anteroposterior diameter), represented by the ratio 84.6:100, is present in a distinctly unusual and almost simian degree. In this character the Taubach tooth resembles the same tooth of the Chimpanzee (Fig. 4), to which it stands nearer than does the corresponding tooth of the Mauer jaw. The manner in which the worn surface of the tooth slopes downwards and forwards

side of the

ide of the same

a in C

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

ins include representatives of those who practised as well as those who suffered from this custom. Both y

ttempt 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 corresp

ructed human skull from Krapina.

ion. The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a femur are certainly most impressive. It is shewn that early palaeolithic man presents exam

y 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 i

ed, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards (as in some crania of aboriginal Australians). The

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 betwe

asurements approximate to one another, the proportion is as 100:92. In other instances the corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered by Professor Kramberger to indicate a special variety (krapinensis) of the Neanderthal or Homo primigenius type. The second type is that of the Spy mandible No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects to the distinction,

heless 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 culmina

ed roots characteristic of teeth found at Krapina, and in Jersey at S. Brélade's Bay. The large pulp-cavit

on. Professor Kramberger holds the view that it constituted a feature of adaptation peculiar to the Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this, Professor Adloff holds that the character is so definite and marked as to enter into the category of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion of these views was carried on somewhat warmly, but yet to some extent fruitlessly so long as the only known examples were those from Krapina. Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on the other side may be ranged the support of Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor Adloff and his supporters. For in a cave near S. Brélade's Bay in Jersey, the explorations of Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have brought to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very similar form. They are said indeed by Dr Ke

almost pygmy proportions: others are long and slender, inappropriate in these respects to the massive skull fragments wh

de's Bay

olumnar' appearance on the affected teeth (cf. fig. 8, K.o.). The teeth from Krapina and Jersey while thus associated must be contrasted with some specimens which they resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth in the Mauer jaw have been described as similar to those from Krapina, but I cannot confirm this from Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (H) is a fair representation. T

size of the pulp-cavity. The latter character may prove more important than the fusion of the roots. But the ev

-aux-Saints

etent observers during their excavations. Again, the remains comprise not only the nearly intact brain-case, but much of the facial part of the skull, together with the lower jaw and

from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Cor

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 w

l 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 bra

to the base-line selected, though in this particular i

g. 1) of various human skulls of

her side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is shallow or non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on this character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet it is quite uncommon in this degree among modern European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida Ruggeri to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large and in the incisor region (i.e. in front) are much curved downwards in the directi

The angle B.PR.P measures the degree of prognathism, and in this respect, the

ill 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

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 sh

vided with an unusually extensive joint-surface on its outer aspect. In this respect it becomes liab

lle, is shewn by their occurrence in bones of corresponding antiquity from La Quina (Marti

ensis hauser

mediate removal of the bones to Breslau, are regrettable incidents which cast a shadow quite unnecessarily on an event of great archaeological interest. By a curious coincidence this took place a few days after the discovery of the human skeleton of La Chapelle (v. supra). The two finds are very fortunately complementary to each other in several respects, for the Dordogne skeleton is that

the Moustier skull (Dordogne). (From

f the jaw-bone from Mauer and of that of the Moustier sk

s especially the case in regard to the teeth and the lower jaw. The former are remarkably large, and they agree herein with the teeth from Krapina (though their roots are distinct and not conjoined as in the Krapina examples). In respect of size, the teeth of the Dordogne individual surpass those of the Mauer jaw, but the first lower molar has proportions similar to the corresponding tooth of that specimen. But, large as they are, the lower teeth are implanted in a mandible falling far short of the Mauer jaw in respect of size and weight (Fig. 13). In fact one of the great characteristics of the Dordogne skeleton is the inadequacy of the mandible when compared to the remainder of the skull, even th

made vertically in the median plane through the chin, which is either receding or prom

e. A an ancient Briton (cf. Fig. 2, B). B Moustier. C M

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.

hen allowance is made for further growth in stature the large size of the skull must be regarded as very extraordinary indeed. A similar remark applies to the estimate of the capacity of the brain-case. A moderate estimate gives 1600 c.c. as the capacity of the brain-case (practically identical with that of the La Chapelle skull). In modern Europeans of about 5 ft. 6 in., this high figure would not cause surprise. In a modern European of the same stature as the Dordogne man (4 ft. 11 in.

ie (Dordog

are 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 va

de l'Aze) the cranium of a child, assignable to the same epoch as the sk

uarry (G

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 Se

d 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,

Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. The various angl

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

vities 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 feat

usia,

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

(Menton

reat depth in a cave known as the 'Grotte des Enfants.' The excavations were set on foot by th

. 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 (Afr

imaldi,' and alleged to present 'negroid' features. Locality. Deeper strata

logical 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 con

skeletons from the 'Grotte des Enfants' differ from the

gical epochs are scanty save in South America. The discoveries made in this part of the New World have been described at great length. In many instances, claims to extraordinary antiquity have been made on their

ade

he 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

Baradero presents no distinctive features sa

e He

atlas vertebra (the vertebra next to the skull) and a thigh-bone. The la

sults 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 impro

. On the other hand, Dr Rivet considers that the Monte Hermoso vertebra could be matched exactly by several specimens in the large collection of exotic human skeletons in the National Museum, Paris. Be this as it may, there is no doubt that the atlas vertebra in question constitutes t

(H. aurignac

ng 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

sidered as transitional forms bridging the gap between the early Palaeolithic types and those of the existing Hominidae. But Professor

ey H

eason, 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 B

form of the characters so strongly developed in the Neanderthal skull and its allies. The Aurignac and Brüx skulls are

ciated 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 rea

the Galley Hill skull, viewe

Hill. ··· N

rman. ··· Mode

arious indices based on such measurements of the Galley Hill crani

of qualification disting

man 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 (sep

tially from its modern European counterparts. Similar conclusions have been formed in regard to the other p

mm

(Mauer). In the second category come instances as to which no reasonable doubt as to their definitely human characters now exists (save possibly in the case of the Taubach tooth and the Hermoso atlas). Of the members of thi

tral forms.Ex. gr.

up

o primigenius. Ex

.H. recens; w

. Ex. gr. G

sap

ssion 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 thi

onderous 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 striki

gested once more. But the differences occur now in the skull. The brain is as large as in the other subdivision (A) and in modern men. The brain-case is becoming elevated: the brow-ridges are undergoing reduction; this process, commencing

e circumstances under which the bones were disc