The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license Title: Prehistoric Man Author: W. L. H. Duckworth Release Date: December 1, 2013 [EBook #44331] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MAN *** Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature PREHISTORIC MAN CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS London: FETTER LANE, E.C. C. F. CLAY, Manager illustration London: H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET, W.C. WILLIAM WESLEY & SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO. Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. All rights reserved front_page First Edition, 1912 Second Edition, 1912 With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on the title page is a reproduction of one used by the earliest known Cambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521 PREFACE This book deals with the earliest phases in the past history of Mankind: the selected period ends at the Aurignacian division of the Palaeolithic Age. I regret to be unable to affix definite dates in years to the several divisions of time now recognised. To illustrate the difficulty of forming conclusions on this subject, it should be noted that in 1904 Professor Rutot (p. 103) assigned a duration of 139,000 years to the Pleistocene period, while in 1909 Dr Sturge claimed 700,000 years for a portion only of the same period. Evidently the present tendency is to increase enormously the drafts on geological time, and to measure in millions the years that have elapsed since the first traces of human existence were deposited. But in the face of estimates which differ so widely, it seemed preferable to distinguish subdivisions of time by reference to animal-types or the forms of stone-implements, rather than by the lapse of years. [Pg v] In the attempt to summarise a considerable amount of evidence, I have tried to select the facts most relevant to the subject in hand. And where an opinion is expressed I have endeavoured to indicate the reasons for the decision that is adopted. Additional evidence is pouring in at the present time, and there is no doubt but that the next few years will witness great extensions of knowledge. In this connection, I take the opportunity of mentioning the discovery made a few weeks ago by M. Henri Martin at La Quina, of a human skeleton resembling the Neanderthal type but presenting (it is said) definite features of inferiority to that type. Another subject of vast importance is Mr Moir's recent demonstration (p. 106) of elaborately worked implements resting beneath strata referred to the Pliocene period. For the loan of blocks, or for permission to reproduce illustrations, my cordial thanks are due to the editors and publishers of the journals mentioned in the following list. The authors' names are appended to the several illustrations. Anatomischer Anzeiger, Archiv für Anthropologie, Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia, Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns, Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft, L'Anthropologie, Royal Dublin Society, Royal Society of Edinburgh, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. W. L. H. DUCKWORTH December 11, 1911 CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. The Precursors of Palaeolithic Man 1 II. Palaeolithic Man 17 III. Alluvial Deposits and Caves 63 IV. Associated Animals and Implements 85 V. Human Fossils and Geological Chronology 112 VI. Human Evolution in the light of recent research 127 Table A to face p. 85 „ B to „ „ 118 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIG. PAGE 1. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc. (From Dubois) 5 2. Outline tracings of Jawbones, (A) Mauer (B) ancient Briton 11 3. Tooth from Taubach: surface of crown. (From Nehring) 22 4. Tooth of Chimpanzee. (From Nehring) 22 5, 6. Tooth from Taubach: inner and outer sides. (From Nehring) 23 7. Human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner) 25 8. Tracings of teeth from Krapina and Mauer. (From Kramberger) 29 9. Human skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Birkner) 33 10. Outline tracings of skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints etc. (From Boule) 35 11. Contours of skulls, (A) New Guinea man (B) European woman 36 12. Outline tracing of human skull from Le Moustier 40 13. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer and Le Moustier 41 14. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer, La Naulette, etc. (From Frizzi) 42 15. Outline tracings of jawbones, (A) ancient Briton (B) Le Moustier (C) Mauer 43 [Pg vi] [Pg vii] [Pg viii] 16. Outline tracings of the Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar) skull. (From Sera) 48 17. Human skull of the Grimaldi-type. (From Birkner) 51 18. Outline tracings of skulls from Galley Hill etc. (From Klaatsch) 58 19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. (From Dubois) 64 20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. (From Birkner) 65 21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. (From Birkner) 69 22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Boule) 72 23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Boule) 77 24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene time. (From Penck) 107 25. Chart of oscillations of snow-level in the Glacial period. (From Penck) 119 26. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc. (From Dubois) 129 27. Position of Palaeolithic Man in the scale of evolution. (From Cross) 131 28. Thigh-bones arranged to illustrate Klaatsch's theory. 136 29. The human skeleton found beneath the Boulder-clay at Ipswich. (From a drawing by Dr Keith, reproduced with permission) 153 CHAPTER I THE PRECURSORS OF PALAEOLITHIC MAN Our knowledge of prehistoric man is based naturally upon the study of certain parts of the human skeleton preserved in a fossil state. In addition to these materials, other evidence is available in the form of certain products of human industry. These include such objects as implements of various kinds, owing their preservation to the almost indestructible nature of their material, or again artistic representations, whether pictorial or glyptic. The evidence of the bones themselves will be considered first, partly for convenience and partly in view of the cogency possessed by actual remains of the human frame. Other branches of the subject will come under review afterwards. Of all the discoveries of ancient remains, whether possibly or certainly human, two in particular stand out pre- eminently in marked relief. The specimens thus distinguished are known as the remains of Pithecanthropus erectus, on the one hand, and on the other a jaw-bone which is attributed to a human type described (from the locality of the discovery) as Homo heidelbergensis. The geological antiquity assigned in each instance is greater than that claimed for any bones acknowledged unreservedly to be human. It is thus clear that a high value attaches to these specimens if they be regarded as documents testifying to the course of human evolution. When the bones are examined, the contrast they provide with all human remains is so marked as to emphasise at once the necessity for a thorough and critical examination of their structure. Pithecanthropus erectus. In the case of these bones, the facts are now so widely known and so easily accessible as to render unnecessary any detailed exposition here. The discoveries were made in the years 1891 and 1892 by Professor Dubois[1], who was engaged at the time on an investigation of the remains of various animals found embedded in a river-bank in Java. As is well known, the actual remains are scanty. They comprise the upper part of a skull, part of a lower jaw (which has never been described), three teeth, and a left thigh-bone. [1] The numbers refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume. Before entering upon any criticism of the results of Professor Dubois' studies, it is convenient to give a general statement of his conclusions. Here we find described a creature of Pliocene age, presenting a form so extraordinary as hardly to be considered human, placed so it seems between the human and simian tribes. It is Caliban, a missing link,— in fact a Pithecanthropus. With the erect attitude and a stature surpassing that of many modern men were combined the heavy brows and narrow forehead of a flattened skull, containing little more than half the weight of brain possessed by an average European. The molar teeth were large with stout and divergent roots. The arguments founded upon the joint consideration of the length of the thigh-bone and the capacity of the skull are of the highest interest. For the former dimension provides a means of estimating approximately the body-weight, while the capacity gives an indication of the brain-weight. The body-weight is asserted to have been about 70 kgm. (eleven stone) and the brain-weight about 750 gm. And the ratio of the two weights is approximately 1⁄94. The corresponding ratios for a large anthropoid ape (Orang-utan) and for man are given in the table following, thus: [Pg 1] [Pg 2] [Pg 3] Orang-utan 1⁄183 Pithecanthropus erectus 1⁄94 Man 1⁄51 The intermediate position of the Javanese fossil is clearly revealed. The same sequence is shewn by a series of tracings representative of the cranial arc in the middle line of the head (Fig. 1). And the results of many tests of this kind, applied not only by Professor Dubois but also by Professor Schwalbe, are confirmatory of the ‘intermediate’ position claimed for Pithecanthropus erectus. The molar teeth are of inadequate size if the skull-cap is that of an ape, whereas they are slightly larger than the corresponding teeth furnished by primitive existing human types. And now some of the objections to this account may be taken. In the first place, the claim to Pliocene antiquity is contested. So keen an interest was excited by Professor Dubois' discovery that more than one expedition has been dispatched to survey and review the ground. It is now declared in certain quarters that the horizon is lower Quaternary: I do not know that any attempt has been made to reduce the age of the strata further. As the matter stands, the difference is not very material, but Professor Dubois refuses to accept the revised estimate and still adheres to his own determination. Incidentally the more recent work (Blanckenhorn[2], 1910) has resulted in the discovery of a tooth claimed as definitely human (this is not the case with the teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus), and yet of an antiquity surpassing that of the remains found by Professor Dubois. The latter appears unconvinced as to the genuineness of the find, but no doubt the case will be fully discussed in publications now in the course of preparation. see caption Fig. 1. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a common dimension, viz. the line Gl—Op, representing a base-line of the brain-case. Pe, Pithecanthropus. Papua, a New Guinea native. Hl, Sm, At are from skulls of monkeys. (After Dubois.) Professor Dubois assigned the bones to one and the same skeleton, and for this he has been severely criticised. Apart from arguments affecting the geological age of the specimens, the question of their forming part of a single individual is very momentous. For if two skeletons are represented, one may be human, while the other is that of an ape. It is admitted that the larger bones were separated by a distance of forty-six feet. By way of meeting this criticism, it is submitted that the distance is by no means so great as to preclude the possibility of the common and identical origin of the various bones. Moreover it is at least curious that if two skeletons are here represented, no further remains should have been detected in the immediate vicinity. The fact that the thigh-bone might easily have passed as that of a man, while the skull-fragment is so divergent from all modern forms as to be scarcely human, is of great interest. The contrast between the indications provided by the two bones was remarked at once. Some writers, rejecting certain other evidence on the point, then drew the inference that the human thigh-bone had been evolved and had arrived at the distinctive human condition in advance of the skull. The importance of this conclusion lies in the fact that the human thigh-bone bears indications of an erect attitude, while the form of the skull gives guidance as to the size of the brain, and consequently to some extent provides a clue to the mental endowment of the individual. Whether the erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development was first obtained by man has been debated for many years. In this case, the evidence was taken to shew that the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth the upper limb was emancipated entirely from its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from their use as organs of prehension. Simultaneously the mechanism whereby the head is attached to the neck and [Pg 4] [Pg 5] [Pg 6] [Pg 7] trunk became profoundly modified. This alteration gave to the brain an opportunity of growth and increase previously denied, but now seized, with the consequent accession of intellectual activity so characteristic of the Hominidae. The story thus expounded is attractive from several points of view. But while possessing the support of the Javan fossil remains, it is not confirmed in the embryonic history of Man, for there the growth of the brain is by far the most distinctive feature. Nor did those who adopted this opinion (in 1896), take into account all the characters of the ancient human remains even then available. For the evidence of those remains points to an order exactly the reverse of that just stated, and it indicates the early acquisition of a large and presumably active brain. And now that additions have been lately made to those older remains (other than the Javan bones), the same ‘reversed’ order seems to be confirmed. On the whole therefore, the soundest conclusion is that following a preliminary increment of brain-material, the erect attitude came as a further evolutionary advance. But to return from this digression to the objections against the Pithecanthropus erectus, it must now be explained that the very contrast between the thigh-bone and the skull-cap in respect of these inferences, has been used as an argument against the association of these bones as part of one skeleton. The objection may be met in two ways at least. For instance, the thigh-bone may yet possess characters which lessen its resemblance to those of recent men, but are not recognised on a superficial inspection. Careful investigation of the thigh-bone seems to shew that such indeed is the case (indeed the human characters are by some absolutely denied). But together with this result comes the discovery that the characters of straightness and slenderness in the shaft of the bone from which the inference as to the erect attitude was largely drawn, do not give trustworthy evidence upon this point. In fact, a human thigh-bone may be much less straight and less slender than that of arboreal animals such as the Gibbon, the Cebus monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycticebus). The famous Eppelsheim femur is straighter than, and as slender as that of Pithecanthropus. It was regarded at first as that of a young woman, but is now ascribed to an anthropoid ape. And in fact, even if the skull-cap and thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus should be retained in association, it seems that the title ‘erectus’ is not fully justified. Another method of rebutting the objection is based on the suggestion that Pithecanthropus is not a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to describe an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in palaeontology, and it was treated leniently by Huxley. To my mind this position can be adopted without materially depreciating the value of the evidence yielded by the conjoint remains, provided only that their original association be acknowledged. Should this assumption be granted, the claims put forward on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem to be justified. On the other hand, should the association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be rejected, the former has not lost all claim to the same position. For the most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe[3] of Strassburg, and the further elaboration of these by Professor Berry[4] and Mr Cross[5] of Melbourne, support Professor Dubois' view. And though the objections may not have been finally disposed of, a review of the literature called forth by Professor Dubois' publications will shew a slight margin of evidence for, rather than against his view. The Heidelberg or Mauer Jaw[6]. Professor Dubois' Javanese researches were carried out in the years 1891 and 1892. Fifteen years separate the discovery of the Pithecanthropus erectus from that of the second great find mentioned in the introductory paragraph of this chapter. This period was by no means barren in respect of other additions to the list of human fossils. But the other results (including even the finds at Taubach) are regarded as of subsidiary importance, so that their consideration will be deferred for the present. In 1907 a lower jaw, known now as the Heidelberg or Mauer jaw, was discovered by workmen in the sand-pit of Mauer near Heidelberg. The Mauer jaw is indeed a most remarkable specimen. The first general outcome of an inspection of the photographs or of the excellent casts (which may now be seen in many museums) is a profound impression of its enormous strength (Figs. 2, 13, and 15c). By every part of the specimen save one, this impression is confirmed. This massiveness, together with the complete absence of any prominence at the chin, would have caused great hesitation in regard to the pronouncement of a decision as to the probable nature of the fossil. The one paradoxical feature is the relatively small size of the teeth. All of these have been preserved, though on the left side the crowns of four have been removed by accident in the process of clearing away some adherent earth and pebbles. The net result shews that the teeth are actually within the range of variation provided by human beings of races still extant, though commonly regarded as ‘primitive,’ if not pithecoid (such as the aboriginal race of Australia). Yet these teeth are implanted in a jaw of such size and strength as render difficult the reference of the specimen to a human being. [Pg 8] [Pg 9] [Pg 10] [Pg 11] [Pg 12] see caption Fig. 2. A outline tracing of a cast of the Mauer Jawbone. B a similar tracing from an unusually large jaw of an ancient Briton. (From specimens in the Cambridge Museum.) The most striking features of the Mauer jaw have been mentioned already. Before entering upon a further discussion of its probable nature, it will be well to note some of the other distinctive characters. Thus the portion Fig. 2 (a) known technically as the ascending ramus is of great size, and particularly wide, surpassing all known human specimens in this respect. The upper margin of this part is very slightly excavated, a slight depression (b) replacing the very definite ‘sigmoid’ notch found in almost all human jaws (though the relative shallowness of this notch has been long recognised as distinctive of the lowest human types). The difference in vertical height between the uppermost points of the condyle (c) and the coronoid process (d) is therefore unusually small. On the other hand, the lower margin of the bone is undulating, so that it presents a hollow on each side, as well as one near the middle line in front. The two halves of the bone are definitely inclined to one another and this convergence is faintly marked in the two rows of teeth behind the canines. The latter teeth do not project markedly above the level of those adjacent to them. The incisor teeth are remarkably curved in their long axes, with a convexity in front. The prominences called ‘genial tubercles’ behind the chin are replaced by a shallow pit or fossa. In one sense the reception accorded by palaeontologists to the fossil jaw of Mauer differs remarkably from most of the comparable instances. That difference consists in the comparative absence of controversy excited by its discovery. This must not be ascribed to any lack of ardour on the part of archaeologists. More probable is it that with the lapse of time, the acceptance of an evolutionary interpretation of the origin of man has gained a wider circle of adherents, so that the claims of even so sensational a specimen as this, are sifted and investigated with a judicial calm much more appropriate and certainly more dignified than the fierce outbursts occasioned by some of the earlier discoveries. It remains to institute brief anatomical comparisons between the Mauer jaw and those of the highest apes on the one hand, and of the most primitive of human beings on the other. (a) Of the three larger anthropoid apes available for comparison, it is hard to say which presents the closest similarity. The Gibbons do not appear to approach so nearly as these larger forms. Among the latter, no small range of individual variations occurs. My own comparisons shew that of the material at my disposal the mandible of an Orang- utan comes nearest to the Mauer jaw. But other mandibles of the same kind of ape (Orang-utan) are very different. The chief difficulty in assigning the possessor of the Mauer jaw to a pithecoid stock has been mentioned already. It consists in the inadequate size of the teeth. In addition to this, other evidence comes from the results of an examination of the grinding surfaces (crowns) of the molar teeth. These resemble teeth of the more primitive human types rather than those of apes. Finally the convergence of the two rows when traced towards the canine or eye-tooth of each side, points in the same direction. (b) If the apes be thus rejected, the next question is, Would the Mauer jaw be appropriate to such a cranium as that [Pg 13] [Pg 14] of Pithecanthropus? I believe an affirmative answer is justifiable. It is true that an excellent authority (Keith[7]) hesitates on the ground that the mandible seems too massive for the skull, though the same writer recognises that, in regard to the teeth, the comparison is apt. This is a difficult point. For instance the H. moust. hauseri (cf. Chapter II) has a mandible which is far ‘lower’ than the capacity of the brain-case would lead one to expect. Therefore it seems that the degree of correlation between mandible and capacity is small, and to predict the size of the brain from evidence given by the jaw is not always safe. It is to be remembered that special stress was laid by Professor Dubois (cf. p. 4) on the fact that the teeth of Pithecanthropus when compared with the skull-cap are inadequately small, if judged by the ape-standard of proportion. The characters of the teeth, in so far as upper and lower molars can be compared, present no obstacle to such an association, and in fact provide some additional evidence in its favour. The crucial point seems therefore to be the massiveness of the jaw. With regard to this, the following remarks may be made. First, that the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus is on all sides admitted to shew provision for powerful jaw-muscles. And further, in respect of actual measurements, the comparison of the transverse width of the Javanese skull-cap with that of the Mauer jaw is instructive. For the skull-cap measures 130 mm. in extreme width, the jaw 130 mm. The association of the two does not, in my opinion, make an extravagant demand on the variability in size of either part. A curious comparison may be instituted between the Mauer jaw and the corresponding bone as represented by Professor Manouvrier (cf. Dubois[8], 1896) in an attempted reconstruction of the whole skull of Pithecanthropus. Professor Manouvrier's forecast of the jaw differs from the Mauer specimen chiefly in regard to the size of the teeth, and the stoutness of the ascending ramus. The teeth are larger and the ascending ramus is more slender in the reconstruction than in the Mauer specimen. (c) Passing from the consideration of Pithecanthropus to that of human beings, the general results of the comparisons that can be made will shew that the gap separating the jaw of Mauer from all modern human representatives is filled by human jaws of great prehistoric antiquity. The progress of an evolutionary development is accordingly well-illustrated by these specimens. And although Homo heidelbergensis is seen to be separated from his modern successors by great differences in form as well as a vast lapse of time, still the intervening period does provide intermediate forms to bridge the gulf. Not the least interesting of many reflections conjured up by the Mauer jaw, is that this extraordinary form should be met with in a latitude so far north of that corresponding to the Javanese discoveries. This difference, together with that of longitude, suggests an immense range of distribution of these ancestral types. Some of their successors are considered in the next chapter. CHAPTER II PALAEOLITHIC MAN The fossil remains described in the preceding chapter possess good claims to that most interesting position, viz. an intermediate one between Mankind and the more highly-developed of the Apes. From such remarkable claimants we turn to consider fossil bones of undoubted human nature. Of such examples some have been regarded as differing from all other human types to such an extent as to justify their segregation in a distinct species or even genus. Yet even were such separation fully justified, they are still indubitably human. In the early phases of the study of prehistoric archaeology, the distinction of a ‘stone age’ from those of metals was soon realised. Credit is due to the present Lord Avebury[9] for the subdivision of that period into the earlier and later parts known as the Palaeolithic and Neolithic stages. At first, those subdivisions possessed no connotation of anatomical or ethnical significance. But as research progressed, the existence of a representative human type specially characteristic of the palaeolithic period passed from the stage of surmise to that of certainty. Yet, although characteristic, this type is not the only one recognisable in those early days. In the following pages, some account is given of the most recent discoveries of human remains to which Palaeolithic antiquity can undoubtedly be assigned. The very numerous works relating to prehistoric man are full of discussions of such specimens as those found in the Neanderthal, at Spy, Engis, Malarnaud, La Naulette or Denise. That some of these examples are of great antiquity is inferred from the circumstances under which they were discovered. The evidence relates either to their association with extinct animals such as the Mammoth, or again the bones may have been found at great depths from the surface, in strata judged to have been undisturbed since the remains were deposited. One of the earliest discoveries was that of the Engis skull; the differences separating this skull from those of modern Europeans are so extraordinarily slight that doubt has been expressed as to the antiquity assigned to the specimen, and indeed this doubt has not been finally dispelled. The bones from Denise (now rehabilitated in respect of their antiquity by Professor Boule) present similar features. But on the other hand the jaws found at La Naulette and Malarnaud suggest the former existence of a lowlier and more bestial form of humanity. Support is provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but in regard to the latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct from presumption) is unfortunately lacking. Further confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry skull from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that of the Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk and Sir William Turner[10] as long ago as 1864, the specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in that of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the geological or archaeological horizon is lamentably defective. After a lapse of some twenty years, the discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium, undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of Mammoth, threw a flood of light on the subject, and enormously enhanced the significance of the earlier discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a human type, different from all other known inhabitants of that continent, and presenting no small resemblance to the [Pg 15] [Pg 16] [Pg 17] [Pg 18] [Pg 19] lowliest modern representatives of mankind, may be said to have been finally established by the results of the excavations at Spy. Moreover the differences thus recognised are such as to lend strong support to the evolutionary view as to the origin of the more recent human stocks from an ancestral series including representatives of a simian phase. Yet the co-existence of a higher type represented by the Engis skull must not be overlooked, nor indeed has this been the case. The significance of so remarkable a phenomenon is more fully discussed in the sequel; but no detailed account of the earlier discoveries need be given. A bibliography is appended and here references (Hœrnes[44], 1908; Schwalbe[55]) will be found to the more important sources of information upon those specimens. Locality Date Literary reference Synonyms Taubach 1895 Nehring[11] Krapina 1899 Kramberger[12] S. Brélade 1910-11 Marett[13] La Chapelle aux Saints 1908 MarettBoule[14] “Corrèze” Le Moustier 1908 Klaatsch[15] “Homo mousterensis hauseri” La Ferrassie 1909 Peyrony[16] Pech de l'Aze 1909 Peyrony[16] Forbes Quarry 1848-1909 Sollas[17] Sera[18] “Gibraltar” Andalusia 1910 Verner[19] Grotte des Enfants 1902-06 Verneau[20] “Grimaldi” Baradero 1887 (S. Roth) Lehmann-Nitsche (1907)[21] Monte Hermoso ? Lehmann-Nitsche (1909)[22] Homo neogaeus” Combe Capelle 1909 Klaatsch[23] “Homo aurignacensis hauseri” Galley Hill 1895 Newton[24] “Homo fossilis” In the present instance, an attempt will be made to provide some account of the most recent advances gained through the results of excavations carried out in late years. And herein, prominence will be given in the first place to such human remains as are assignable to the lowlier human type represented previously by the Spy skeletons. Following upon these, come examples possessing other characters and therefore not referable to the same type. The discoveries are commonly designated by the name of the locality in which they were made. Those selected for particular mention are enumerated in the list on p. 20. Taubach in Saxe-Weimar. Certain specimens discovered at Taubach and first described in 1895 possess an importance second only to that of the Mauer jaw and of the Javan bones found by Professor Dubois. Indeed there would be justification for associating the three localities in the present series of descriptions. But upon consideration, it was decided to bring the Taubach finds into the present place and group. It may be added that they are assigned to an epoch not very different from that represented by the Mauer strata whence the mandible was obtained. see caption Fig. 3. The grinding surface of the first right lower molar tooth from Taubach. The letters denote several small prominences called cusps. Fig. 4. The grinding surface of the corresponding tooth (cf. Fig. 3) of a Chimpanzee. (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are much enlarged.) The actual material consists only of two human teeth of the molar series. One is the first lower ‘milk’ molar of the left [Pg 20] [Pg 21] side. This tooth exceeds most corresponding modern examples in its dimensions. In a large collection of modern teeth from Berlin no example provided dimensions so large. The surface is more worn than is usual in modern milk teeth of this kind. The second tooth (Fig. 3) is the first lower ‘permanent’ molar of the left side. It bears five cusps. Neither this number of cusps, nor its absolute dimensions, confer distinction upon the tooth. Its chief claim to notice is based upon its relative narrowness from side to side. That narrowness (proportion of transverse to anteroposterior diameter), represented by the ratio 84.6:100, is present in a distinctly unusual and almost simian degree. In this character the Taubach tooth resembles the same tooth of the Chimpanzee (Fig. 4), to which it stands nearer than does the corresponding tooth of the Mauer jaw. The manner in which the worn surface of the tooth slopes downwards and forwards has been claimed as another simian character. In these respects, the Taubach tooth is among the most ape- like of human teeth (whether prehistoric or recent) as yet recorded, and in my opinion there is some difficulty in deciding whether this is the tooth of a human being or of a pithecoid human precursor. There is a very slight tendency (Figs. 5, 6) to concrescence of the roots, and these are curiously parallel in direction, when viewed from the side. In the latter respect no similarity to the teeth of apes can be recognised. see caption Fig. 5. Inner side of the Taubach tooth.] Fig. 6. Outer side of the same. (From Nehring.) Krapina in Croatia. Next in order to the discovery of human teeth at Taubach, the results of excavations in a so-called ‘rock-shelter’ on the bank of the river Krapini[vc]a in Croatia, call for consideration. Immense numbers of bones were obtained, and the remains of a large number of human beings were found to be mingled with those of various animals. Apart from their abundance, the fragmentary character of the human bones is very remarkable. The discovery that one particular stratum in the cave consisted mainly of burnt human bones has suggested that some of the early inhabitants of the Krapina shelter practised cannibalism. Indeed this view is definitely adopted by Professor Kramberger, and he makes the suggestion that the remains include representatives of those who practised as well as those who suffered from this custom. Both young individuals and those of mature age are represented, but very aged persons have not been recognised. Turning to the details of the actual bones, the conclusion of outstanding interest is the recognition of further instances of the type of the Neanderthal and of Spy, the latter discovery being separated by a lapse of twenty years and more from that at Krapina. An attempt has been made to reconstruct one skull, and the result is shewn in Fig. 7, which provides a view of the specimen in profile. Viewed from above, the chief character is the width of the cranial portion, which exceeds very distinctly in this respect the corresponding diameter in the more classic examples from the Neanderthal and Spy. It is very important to note that the brain-case is thus shewn to be remarkably capacious, and this is all the more remarkable since the limb-bones do not denote a very great stature or bulk. [Pg 22] [Pg 23] [Pg 24] [Pg 25] see caption Fig. 7. Profile view of a reconstructed human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.) Having recently examined the specimens now in the Museum of Palaeontology at Agram in Croatia, I venture to add some notes made on that occasion. The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a femur are certainly most impressive. It is shewn that early palaeolithic man presents examples of skulls both of brachy-cephalic and dolicho-cephalic proportions. Variations in the form and arrangement of the facial bones also occur. The form and proportions of the brain-case have been noted already. The profile view (cf. Fig. 7) shews the distinctive features of the brow region. The brow-ridges are very large, but they do not absolutely conform to the conditions presented by the corresponding parts in the skulls of aboriginal Australian or Tasmanian natives. The region of the forehead above the brows is in some instances (but not in all) flattened or retreating, and this feature is indicated even in some small fragments by the oblique direction of the lamina cribrosa of the ethmoid bone. Two types of upper jaw are distinguishable: no specimen projects forwards so far as might be expected, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards (as in some crania of aboriginal Australians). The facial surface of the jaw is not depressed to form a ‘canine fossa.’ The nasal bones are flattened. The mandibles present further remarkable characters. By these again, two types have been rendered capable of distinction. In their massiveness they are unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In absolute width one specimen actually surpasses the Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival that bone in respect of the great width found to characterise the ascending ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the chin is absent or at best feebly developed. In one specimen the body of the jaw is bent at an angle between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is thus reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the incisor teeth the conformation is peculiar, again suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer jaw, and differing from that found in more recent human specimens. The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made in the following manner. The bone was placed on a flat surface. The vertical height of the tooth-bearing part was measured in two regions, (a) near the front, (b) further back, and close to the second molar tooth (cf. Fig. 2f, g). In some of the bones these measurements are nearly equal, but the hinder one is always the less. In the instances in which the two measurements approximate to one another, the proportion is as 100:92. In other instances the corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered by Professor Kramberger to indicate a special variety (krapinensis) of the Neanderthal or Homo primigenius type. The second type is that of the Spy mandible No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects to the distinction, urging that the indices (92 and 86) are not sufficiently contrasted. However this may be, it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences. Thus the curvature of the forehead is a variable feature, some skulls having had foreheads much flatter and more retreating than others. The limb bones are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of the arm-bones and thigh-bones are longer and more slender than others. How far these differences really penetrated and whether the thesis of two types can be fully sustained, does not appear to admit of a final answer. The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the distinction will be confirmed. But nevertheless I am far from supporting in all respects the view of Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe the suggestion of realistic tableaux depicting the murderous conflict of the two tribes at Krapina, the butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene of cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either variety or type found at Krapina can be reasonably identified with that of the Galley Hill skeleton. But of these matters further discussion is reserved for the sequel. [Pg 26] [Pg 27] [Pg 28] see caption Fig. 8. Tracings (from skiagrams) of various molar teeth. The specimen K.o. from Krapina shews the conjoined roots characteristic of teeth found at Krapina, and in Jersey at S. Brélade's Bay. The large pulp- cavity of the Krapina teeth should be noted. K.o., K.C., K.E., K.G., from Krapina; H. Mauer. (From Kramberger.) This brief sketch of the cranial characters of the Krapina remains must be supplemented by a note on the teeth. Great numbers were found, and some of them are of enormous dimensions, surpassing those of the Mauer jaw. But some of the molar teeth are further distinguished in a very remarkable way, for the roots supporting the crown of the tooth are conjoined or fused: they are not distinct or divergent as is usual. The contrast thus provided by these anomalous teeth is well illustrated in the accompanying figure (8, Ko). Now such fusion of roots is not absolutely unknown at the present day; but the third molar or wisdom tooth is most frequently affected. The occurrence is extremely unusual in the other molar teeth of modern men. Yet among the Krapina teeth, such fusion is striking both in its degree and in its frequency. So marked a characteristic has attracted much attention. Professor Kramberger holds the view that it constituted a feature of adaptation peculiar to the Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this, Professor Adloff holds that the character is so definite and marked as to enter into the category of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion of these views was carried on somewhat warmly, but yet to some extent fruitlessly so long as the only known examples were those from Krapina. Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on the other side may be ranged the support of Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor Adloff and his supporters. For in a cave near S. Brélade's Bay in Jersey, the explorations of Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have brought to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very similar form. They are said indeed by Dr Keith to be precisely comparable to those from Krapina. The conjoined roots of such teeth should be regarded therefore as more than a peculiarity of the Palaeolithic men of Croatia, and rather as a very definite means of assigning to a particular Palaeolithic epoch any other instances of a similar nature. Space will not admit of more than a simple record of two other features of the Krapina teeth. They are (a) the curvature of the canine teeth and (b) the remarkable size and extent of the ‘pulp-cavity’ (cf. Fig. 8, Ko) of the molar teeth. In entering upon so protracted a discussion of this part of the evidence, the excuse is proffered that, as may be noted in the instances at Trinil and Taubach, teeth are remarkably well-fitted for preservation in the fossil state, since they may be preserved in circumstances leading to the complete destruction of other parts of the skeleton. The limb bones of the Krapina skeletons are chiefly remarkable for the variety they present. Some are short and stout, of almost pygmy proportions: others are long and slender, inappropriate in these respects to the massive skull fragments which predominate. The distinction of two human types upon evidence furnished by the limb bones has already been mentioned. S. Brélade's Bay, Jersey. A cave in this locality has been explored during the last two years (1910, 1911). Human remains are represented by the teeth already mentioned on account of their resemblance to those found at Krapina. The resemblance depends primarily upon the curious fusion of the roots in the molar teeth. Moreover, the circumference of the combined and thickened roots is so great as to confer a most remarkable ‘columnar’ appearance on the affected teeth (cf. fig. 8, K.o.). The teeth from Krapina and Jersey while thus associated must be contrasted with some specimens which they resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth in the Mauer jaw have been described as similar to those from Krapina, but I cannot confirm this from Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (H) is a fair representation. The teeth of the Forbes Quarry and Le Moustier specimens do not conform to the precise requirements of the test. The Spy [Pg 29] [Pg 30] [Pg 31] [Pg 32] teeth are said to have three distinct roots save in two cases, where the numbers are four and two respectively. The test of combined molar roots therefore provides a means of subdividing a group of examples otherwise similar, rather than a mark of recognition applicable to all alike. The S. Brélade teeth also resemble those from Krapina in the proportions of their crowns and the unusually large size of the pulp-cavity. The latter character may prove more important than the fusion of the roots. But the evidence of their surroundings assigns the teeth from Jersey to an epoch less ancient than that of the Krapina men. La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze). The human skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints holds a very distinguished position among its congeners. In the first place, the discovery was not haphazard, but made by two very competent observers during their excavations. Again, the remains comprise not only the nearly intact brain-case, but much of the facial part of the skull, together with the lower jaw and many bones of the trunk and limbs. The individual was a male of mature age, but not senile (Manouvrier). For these reasons, the value of this skeleton in evidence is singularly great. see caption Fig. 9. Profile view of the skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Corrèze). (From Birkner, after Boule.) Speaking generally, the specimen is found to resemble very closely the Neanderthal skeleton in practically every structure and feature common to the two individuals. This correspondence is confirmatory therefore of the view which assigns great antiquity to the Neanderthal man, and in addition to this, further support is given to the recognition of these examples (together with those from Spy and Krapina) as representatives of a widely distributed type. It is increasingly difficult to claim them as individual variations which have been preserved fortuitously. Beyond these inferences, the skeleton from La Chapelle adds very greatly to the sum total of our knowledge of the structural details of these skeletons. For here the facial bones are well preserved. Before proceeding to their consideration reference should be made to the side view of the skull (Fig. 9), as well as to the tracings of the brain-case brought into comparison with those provided by the Neanderthal and Spy crania. In the case of one illustration of those tracings (Fig. 10) it must be remarked that objection is taken by Professor Klaatsch to the base-line selected, though in this particular instance, that objection has less weight than in others. [Pg 33] [Pg 34] [Pg 35] [Pg 36] see caption Fig. 10. Outline tracings (cf. Fig. 1) of various human skulls of the Palaeolithic Age. (From Boule.) Turning to the facial parts of the skull, the brows will be seen to overhang the face less than in many crania of aboriginal Australians. Prognathism, i.e. projection of the jaws (Fig. 11), though distinct, is less pronounced than might be expected. Hereby the reconstruction of the facial parts of the Neanderthal skull, as prepared by Professor Klaatsch, is shewn to be much exaggerated. The skeleton of the nose reveals some simian traits, and on either side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is shallow or non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on this character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet it is quite uncommon in this degree among modern European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida Ruggeri to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large and in the incisor region (i.e. in front) are much curved downwards in the direction of their length. But this, though probably correct, is yet a matter of inference, for only a couple of teeth (the second premolars of the left side) were found in situ. And so far no detailed description of these teeth has appeared. The mandible is of extraordinary dimensions; very widely separated ‘ascending rami’ converge to the massive body of the jaw. The sigmoid notch is almost as shallow as in the Mauer jaw. The chin is retreating or absent. see caption Fig. 11. Contours of two skulls, A of a New Guinea man; B of an European woman. The angle B.PR.P measures the degree of prognathism, and in this respect, the two specimens are strongly contrasted. (From specimens in the Cambridge Museum.) Such are the more easily recognisable features of the skull. It will be understood that many more details remain for discussion. But within the allotted space, two only can be dealt with. The capacity of the brain-case is surprisingly large, for it is estimated at 1600 cubic centimetres: from this figure (which will be the subject of further discussion in the sequel) it appears that the man of La Chapelle was amply provided with cerebral material for all ordinary needs as judged even by modern standards. In the second place, MM. Boule and Anthony, not content with a mere estimate of capacity, have published an elaborate account of the form of the brain as revealed by a cast of the interior of the brain- case. As the main result of their investigations, they are enabled to record a list of characters indicative of a comparatively lowly status as regards the form of the brain, although in actual size it leaves little to be desired. The principal points of interest in the remainder of the skeleton refer in the first instance to the estimate of stature and the evidence provided as to the natural pose and attitude of the individual. Using Professor Pearson's table, I estimate the stature as being from 1600 to 1620 mm. (5ft. 3in. or 5ft. 4in.), a result almost identical with the estimate given for the Neanderthal man. In both, the limb bones are relatively thick and massive, and by the curvature of the thigh-bones and of the upper parts of the shin-bones, a suggestion is give...