The most important of recent discoveries of the remains of early prehistoric man have now been considered. Not only the evidence of the actual remains, but also that furnished by their surroundings has been called upon. It is evident that the last decade has been remarkably productive of additions to the stock of information on these subjects.

In the next place, enquiry has to be made whether any relation exists between the two methods of grouping, viz. (1) that in which the characters of the skeletons are taken as the test, and (2) that dependent upon the nature of the surroundings. A first attempt to elucidate the matter can be made by means of a tabulated statement, such as that which follows.

In constructing this table, the various finds have been ordinated according to the degree of resemblance to modern Europeans presented by the respective skeletons. Thus Division II with Subdivision B heads the list. Then follows Subdivision A, and finally Division I will be found in the lowest place. This order having been adopted, the remaining data were added in the sequence necessarily imposed upon them thereby.

(a) In an analysis of this table the several columns should be considered in order. Taking that headed ‘Immediate surroundings,’ it is evident that whereas most of the members of Division II were ‘cave-men,’ two exceptions occur. Of these, the Galley Hill skeleton is by far the most remarkable. The Taubach remains represent, it will be remembered, a form almost on the extreme confines of humanity. That it should resemble the members of Division I, themselves in a similar position, is not very remarkable. And indeed it is perhaps in accordance with expectation, that remains of the more remote and primitive examples should be discovered, so to speak, ‘in the open.’ All the more noteworthy therefore is the position of the Galley Hill man, whose place according to his surroundings is at the end of the list opposite to that assigned to him by his physical conformation.

(b) Passing to the ‘Associated animals,’ similar conclusions will be formed again. Thus in the first place, most of the ‘cave-men’ were accompanied by remains of the Reindeer. Le Moustier and Krapina are exceptions but provide Bison or Urus which are elsewhere associated with the Reindeer. Otherwise Galley Hill and Taubach again stand out as exceptions. Moreover they have again some features in common, just as has been noted in respect of their alluvial surroundings. For the Elephant (E. antiquus) is identical in both instances. But the Rhinoceros of the ‘high level’ terrace gravel is not the same as that found at Taubach, and though the succession is discussed later, it may be stated at once that the Rhinoceros megarhinus has been considered to stand in what may be termed a grand-parental relation to that of Taubach (R. merckii), the Rhinoceros etruscus of the Mauer Sands representing the intervening generation (Gaudry[27], 1888). For the various names, reference should be made to the list of synonyms appended to Table A. Should further evidence of the relative isolation of the Galley Hill skeleton be required, the gigantic beaver (Trogontherium) is there to provide it, since nowhere else in this list does this rodent appear. The paradoxical position of the Galley Hill skeleton having been indicated, it is convenient to deal with all the examples of skeletons from alluvial deposits taken as a single group, irrespective of their actual characters.

(i) The study of the animals found in the corresponding or identical alluvial deposits, leads to inferences which may be stated as follows. The Trinil (Java) fauna will not be included, since the Javanese and European animals are not directly comparable. If attention is confined to the remaining instances, viz. Galley Hill, Taubach and Mauer, agreement is shewn in respect of the presence of Elephas antiquus, and this is absent from all the cave-deposits considered here [v. infra (ii) p. 90]. A rhinoceros appears in all three localities, but is different in each. Finally, two (viz. Galley Hill and Mauer) of the three, provide at least one very remarkable mammalian form, viz. Trogontherium (Mimomys cantianus is equally suggestive) of the high-level gravels, and the Ursus arvernensis of the Mauer Sands.

The significance of these animals may be indicated more clearly by the following statement. If the history of Elephas antiquus be critically traced, this animal appears first in a somewhat hazy atmosphere, viz. that of the transition period between Pliocene and Pleistocene times. It is a more primitive form of elephant than the Mammoth. Indeed, Gaudry[27] (1888) placed it in a directly ancestral relation to the last-mentioned elephant. And though the two were contemporary for a space, yet Elephas antiquus was the first to disappear. Moreover this elephant has much more definite associations with the southern group of mammals than has the Mammoth. Its presence is therefore indicative of the considerable antiquity of the surrounding deposits, provided always that the latter be contemporaneous with it. With regard to the Rhinoceros, the species R. megarhinus and R. etruscus have been found in definitely Pliocene strata. The former (R. megarhinus) seems to have appeared earliest (at Montpellier), whereas the Etruscan form owes its name to the late Pliocene formations of the Val d'Arno, in which it was originally discovered. The third species (R. merckii) is somewhat later, but of similar age to Elephas antiquus, with which it constantly appears. It is remarkable that the R. etruscus, though not the earliest to appear, seems yet to have become extinct before the older R. megarhinus. The latter was contemporary with R. merckii, though it did not persist so long as that species. With regard to the three alluvial deposits, the Rhinoceros provides a means of distinction not indicated by the elephantine representative, and the presence of R. etruscus is a test for very ancient deposits. From what has been stated above, it follows that of the three localities the Mauer Sands have the more ancient facies, and it is significant that here also the human form proves to be furthest removed from modern men. But the other localities are not clearly differentiated, save that the Taubach strata are perhaps the more recent of the two.

Coming next to the ‘peculiar’ animals; the Ursus arvernensis of Mauer is almost as distinctively ‘Pliocene’ as its associate, Rhinoceros etruscus. The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable to these, nor to the Trogontherium (or Mimomys) of the high-level terrace gravel. These animals are also strongly suggestive of the Pliocene fauna.

To sum up, it will be found that the evidence of the Elephant is to the effect that these alluvial deposits are of early Pleistocene age. It leads to the expectation that the fauna in general will have a ‘southern,’ as contrasted with an ‘arctic’ aspect. From the study of the Rhinoceros it appears that the Mauer Sands are probably the most ancient in order of time, that the strata of Taubach are the latest of the three and that Elephas antiquus will occur there (as indeed it does).

The other animals mentioned clinch the evidence for the Pliocene resemblance, and (at latest) the early Pleistocene antiquity of the Mauer Sands and the high-level terrace gravels. Within the limits thus indicated, the deposit of Mauer is again shewn to be the oldest, followed by the terrace-gravels, while Taubach is the latest and youngest of the three. All the characteristic animals are now entirely extinct.

For the reasons stated above, the fossil Javanese mammals of Trinil have not been discussed. It will suffice to note that on the whole they indicate a still earlier period than those of the European deposits in question.

(ii) The animals associated with the cave-men now call for consideration. The great outstanding feature is the constancy with which the Reindeer is found. This leads to a presumption that the climate was at least temperate rather than ‘southern.’ Beyond this, it will be noted that in general the cave-fauna is more familiar in aspect, the Reindeer having survived up to the present day, though not in the same area. Again, save in one locality, not a single animal out of those discussed in connection with the alluvial deposits appears here. The exception is the Krapina rock-shelter. The surviving animal is Rhinoceros merckii, described above as one of the later arrivals in the epochs represented by the alluvial deposits. Krapina does not provide the Reindeer, and in this respect is contrasted again with the remaining localities. Yet the presence of the Marmot at Krapina may be nearly as significant as that of the Reindeer would be.

Another cave, viz. the Grotte des Enfants, may also need reconsideration. For instance, the Rhinoceros merckii was found in the deepest strata of this cave: but I do not consider that adequate evidence is given of its contemporaneity with the two human skeletons here considered. But the Reindeer is found in the same cave, as indicated in the table.

With the exception of Krapina therefore, the conditions are remarkably uniform. This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence from many caves not described in detail here because of the lack of human bones therein or the imperfection of such as were found. Such caves have yielded abundant evidence in regard to the ‘associated fauna.’ A few of the more important results of the investigation of the mammals may be given. Thus the distribution of the Reindeer is so constant that except in regard to its abundance or rarity when compared with the remains of the horse in the same cave, it is of little or no use as a discriminating agency. The Mammoth (E. primigenius) was contemporaneous with the Reindeer, but was plentiful while the Reindeer was still rare. A similar remark applies to the Hairy Rhinoceros (R. tichorhinus), and also to the Cave-Bear. The Cervidae (other than the Reindeer), the Equidae, the Suidae (Swine) and the smaller Rodentia (especially Voles) are under investigation, but the results are not applicable to the finer distinctions envisaged here.

To sum up the outcome of this criticism; it appears that of the cave-finds, Krapina stands out in contrast with the remainder, in the sense that its fauna is more ancient, and is indicative of a southern rather than a temperate environment. The latitude of Krapina has been invoked by way of explaining this difference, upon the supposition that the Rhinoceros merckii survived longer in the south. Yet Krapina does not differ in respect of latitude from the caves of Le Moustier and La Chapelle, while it is rather to the north of the Mentone caves. Lastly, some weight must be attached to the alleged discovery at Pont Newydd in Wales, of Mousterian implements with remains of R. merckii.

The fauna of the other caves suggests temperate, if not sub-arctic conditions of climate. In all cases, the cave-finds are assignable to a period later in time than that in which the fluviatile deposits (previously discussed) were formed. The cave-men thus come within the later subdivisions of the Pleistocene period.

(c) The fifth column of the table gives the types of stone implements found in association with the respective remains. As is well known, and as was stated in the introductory sentences of this book, stone artefacts constitute the second great class of evidence on the subject of human antiquity. As such they might appropriately have been accorded a separate chapter or even a volume. Here a brief sketch only of their significance in evidence will be attempted. The value of stone implements in deciding upon the age of deposits (whether in caves or elsewhere) depends upon the intimacy of the relation existing between various forms of implement and strata of different age. How close that intimacy really is, has been debated often and at great length. Opinions are still at variance in regard to details, but as to certain main points, no doubt remains. Yet the study is one in which even greater specialisation is needed than in respect of comparative osteology. The descriptions following these preliminary remarks are based upon as extensive an examination as possible, both of the literature, and of the materials.

To discuss the validity of the claims made in favour of or against the recognition of certain individual types will be impossible, save in the very briefest form. The better-known varieties have received names corresponding to the localities where they were first discovered, or where by reason of their abundance they led to the recognition of their special value as a means of classification. These designations will be employed without further definition or explanation, save in a few instances.

Commencing again with the fifth column of the table, the first point to notice is that no implements at all have been discovered in immediate association with the fossil remains at Mauer and Trinil (Java). Yet in the absence of evidence, it must not be concluded that the contemporary representatives of mankind were incapable of providing such testimony. Evidence will be adduced presently to show the incorrectness of such a conclusion.

In the next place, the great majority of the cave-men are associated with implements of one and the same type, viz. the Mousterian, so called from the locality (Le Moustier) which has furnished so complete an example of ancient prehistoric man.

Lastly, the Galley Hill skeleton maintains the distinctive position assigned to it, for as in the previous columns, it disagrees also here with the majority of the examples ranged near it.

If enquiry be made as to the significance, i.e. the sequence in point of time and the general status of the various types of implements mentioned in the table, it will be found that all without exception are described as of Palaeolithic type. Indeed they furnish largely the justification for the application of that term (employed so often in Chapter II) to the various skeletons described there.

To these Palaeolithic implements, others of the Neolithic types succeeded in Europe. [It is necessary to insist upon this succession as European, since palaeoliths are still in use among savage tribes, such as the aboriginal (Bush) natives of South Africa.] Confining attention to palaeoliths and their varieties, the discovery of a form alleged to fill the gap separating the most ancient Neolithic from the least ancient Palaeolithic types may be mentioned. The implements were obtained from the cave known as Le Mas d'Azil in the south of France.

In Germany, the researches of Professor Schmidt[28] in the caverns of WÜrttemburg have revealed a series of strata distinguished not only in position and sequence but also by the successive types of stone implements related to the several horizons. The sequence may be shewn most concisely if the deposits are compared in a tabular form as follows (Table I).

These caves give the information necessary for a correct appreciation of the position of all the cave-implements in Table A. Reverting to the latter, and having regard to the cave-men, both subdivisions of Division II (cf. Table A) appear, but no example or representative of the earliest form (designated by Division I). The fauna is entirely Pleistocene, if we except such a trifling claim to Pliocene antiquity as may be based upon the presence of Rhinoceros merckii at Krapina.

The results of this enquiry shew therefore that genuine Mousterian implements are of Pleistocene age, that they were fabricated by human beings of a comparatively low type, who lived in caves and were by occupation hunters of deer and other large ungulate animals. So much has long been known, but the extraordinary distinctness of the evidence of superposition shewn in Professor Schmidt's work at Sirgenstein, furnishes the final proof of results arrived at in earlier days by the slow comparison of several sites representing single epochs. That work also helps to re-establish the Aurignacian horizon and period as distinctive.

TABLE I.

When attention is turned from the cave-finds to those in alluvial deposits, names more numerous but less familiar meet the view. As the animals have been shewn to differ, so the types of implements provide a marked contrast. Yet a transition is suggested by the claim made on behalf of Mousterian implements for the Taubach deposits, a claim which (it will be remembered) is absolutely rejected by some experts of high authority.

In pursuing the sequence of implements from the Mousterian back to still earlier types, cave-hunting will as a rule provide one step only, though this is of the greatest value. In a few caves, implements of the type made famous by discoveries in alluvial gravels at S. Acheul in France (and designated the Acheulean type) have been found in the deeper levels. Such a cave is that of La Ferrassie (cf. p. 74); another is that of La Chapelle, in which (it will be remembered) the Acheulean implements underlay the human interment. Kent's Hole in Devonshire is even more remarkable. For the lowest strata in this cavern yielded implements of the earliest Chellean form, though this important fact is not commonly recognised. Such caves are of the greatest interest, for they provide direct evidence of the succession of types, within certain limits. But the indefatigable labours of M. Commont[29] of Amiens have finally welded the two series, viz. the cave-implements and the river-drift implements, into continuity, by demonstrating in the alluvial deposits of the river Somme, a succession of types, from the Mousterian backwards to much more primitive forms. These newly-published results have been appropriately supplemented by discoveries in the alluvial strata of the Danube. Combining these results from the river deposits, and for the sake of comparison, adding those from the caves at Ofnet and Sirgenstein, a tabulated statement (Table II) has been drawn up.

The two examples of human skeletons from alluvial deposits given in Table A are thus assigned to epochs distinguished by forms of implement more primitive than those found usually in caves; and moreover the more primitive implements are actually shewn to occur in deeper (i.e. more ancient) horizons where superposition has been observed. The greater antiquity of the two river-drift men (as contrasted with the cave-men) has been indicated already by the associated animals, and this evidence is now confirmed by the characters of the implements.

It may be remarked again that the details of stratigraphical succession have but recently received complete demonstration, mainly through the researches of Messrs Commont, Obermaier[30], and Bayer[30]. The importance of such results is extraordinarily far-reaching, since a means is provided hereby of correlating archaeological with geological evidence to an extent previously unattained.

(d) It will be noted that this advance has taken little or no account of actual human remains. For in the nature of things, implements will be preserved in river deposits, where skeletons would quickly disintegrate and vanish.

TABLE II.

[1] For the occurrence of Acheulean and Chellean implements in caves, v. page 98.[2] Schmidt, 1909.[3] Commont, 1908.[4] Obermaier and Bayer, 1909.

The next subject of enquiry is therefore that of the antiquity of Man as indicated by the occurrence of his artefacts.

The succession of Palaeolithic implements has just been given and discussed, as far back as the period marked by the Chellean implements of the lower river gravels (not necessarily the lower terrace) of S. Acheul. For up to this point the testimony of human remains can be called in evidence. And as regards the associated animals, the Chellean implements (Taubach) have been shewn to accompany a group of animals suggestive of the Pliocene fauna which they followed.

But implements of the type of Chelles have been found with a more definitely ‘Pliocene’ form of elephant than those already mentioned. At S. Prest and at Tilloux in France, Chellean implements are associated with Elephas meridionalis, a species destined to become extinct in very early Pleistocene times. Near the JalÓn river in Aragon, similar implements accompany remains of an elephant described as a variety of E. antiquus distinctly approaching E. meridionalis.

In pursuing the evidence of human antiquity furnished by implements, a start may be made from the data corresponding to the Galley Hill skeleton in column 5 of Table A. Two divergent views are expressed here, since the alternatives “Acheulean” or “StrÉpyan” are offered in the table. In the former instance (Acheulean) a recent writer (Mr Hinton, 1910) insists on the Pliocene affinities of the high-level terrace mammals. But as a paradox, he states that the high-level terrace deposits provide implements of the Acheulean type, whereas the Chellean type would be expected, since on the Continent implements associated with a fauna of Pliocene aspect, are of Chellean type. To follow Mr Hinton in his able discussion of this paradox is tempting, but not permissible here; it must suffice to state that the difficulty is reduced if Professor Rutot's[31] view be accepted. For the StrÉpyan form of implement (which M. Rutot recognises in this horizon) is older than the others mentioned and resembles the Chellean type. To appreciate this, the sequence which Professor Rutot claims to have established is here appended.

Several results of vast importance would follow, should the tabulated suggestions be accepted unreservedly in their entirety.

An inference of immediate interest is to the effect that if Professor Rutot's view be adopted, the high-level terrace of the Thames valley is not contrasted so strongly with continental deposits containing the same mammals, as Mr Hinton suggests. For Professor Rutot's StrÉpyan period is earlier than the Chellean. It may be questioned whether Mr Hinton is right in assigning only Acheulean implements to the high-terrace gravels. Indeed Mr E. T. Newton (1895) expressly records the occurrence at Galley Hill, of implements more primitive than those of Acheulean form, and ‘similar to those found by Mr B. Harrison on the high plateau near Ightham,’—i.e. the Mesvinian type of Professor Rutot. A final decision is perhaps unattainable at present. But on the whole, the balance of evidence seems to go against Mr Hinton; though per contra it will not escape notice that since 1903, Professor Rutot has ‘reduced’ the Galley Hill skeleton from the Mafflian to the StrÉpyan stage, and it is therefore possible that further reduction may follow.

Leaving these problems of the Galley Hill implements and the StrÉpyan period, the Mesvinian and Mafflian types are described by Professor Rutot as representatives of yet older and more primitive stages in the evolution of these objects. As remarked above (Chapter III), the Mauer jaw is referred by Professor Rutot to the Mafflian (implement) period of the early Pleistocene age, though the grounds for so definite a statement are uncertain.

More primitive, and less shapely therefore, than the Mafflian implements, are the forms designated ‘Reutelian.’ They are referred to the dawn of the Quaternary or Pleistocene period. But with these the initial stage of evolution seems to be reached. Such ‘eoliths,’ as they have been termed, are only to be distinguished by experts, and even these are by no means agreed in regarding them as products of human industry. If judgment on this vital point be suspended for the moment, it will be seen that Professor Rutot's scheme carries this evidence of human existence far back into the antiquity denoted by the lapse of the Pliocene and Miocene periods of geological chronology. But let it be remarked that when the names Kentian, Cantalian and Fagnian are employed, no claim is made or implied that three distinctive types of implement are distinguished, for in respect of form they are all Reutelian.

Herein the work of M. Commont must be contrasted with that of Professor Rutot. For the gist of M. Commont's researches lies in the demonstration of a succession of types from the more perfect to the less finished, arranged in correspondence with the superimposed strata of a single locality. A vertical succession of implements accompanies a similar sequence of strata.

Professor Rutot examines the Pliocene deposits in England, Miocene in France and Oligocene in Belgium, and finds the same Reutelian type in all. The names Kentian, Cantalian, and Fagnian should therefore be abandoned, for they are only synonyms for Pliocene-Reutelian, etc.

It is hard to gain an idea of the enormous duration of human existence thus suggested. But a diagram (Fig. 24) constructed by Professor Penck[32] is appended with a view to the graphic illustration of this subject. The years that have elapsed since the commencement of the Oligocene period must be numbered by millions. The human type would be shewn thus not merely to have survived the Hipparion, Mastodon and Deinotherium but to have witnessed their evolution and the parental forms whence they arose.

Such is the principal outcome of the opinions embodied in the tabulation of Professor Rutot. That observer is not isolated in his views, though doubtless their most energetic advocate at the present day. We must admire the industry which has conferred upon this subject the support of evidence neither scanty in amount, nor negligible in weight. But the court is still sitting, no final verdict being yet within sight.

While the so-called Eocene eoliths of Duan (Eure-et-Loire) fail to receive acceptance (Laville[33], 1906), even at Professor Rutot's hands (1911), it is otherwise with those ascribed to the Oligocene period. Mr Moir[34] of Ipswich has lately recognised prepalaeoliths beneath the Suffolk Crag (Newbourn) at Ipswich resting 011 the underlying London Clay.

Some objections to the recognition of the so-called ‘eoliths’ as artefacts may now be considered.

(1) The case of the opponents rests mainly on a fourfold basis of argument. Thus the nature of the splintering or chipping is called in question. Some writers appeal to weathering, others to movements in the deposits (‘earth-creep,’ and ‘foundering of drifts,’ Warren[35] 1905. and Breuil, 1910), and others again to the concussions experienced by flints in a torrential rush of water. The last explanation is supported by observations on the forms of flints removed from certain rotary machines used in cement-factories (Boule[36], 1905).

(2) A second line of opposition impugns the association of the flints with the strata wherein they were found, or the geological age of those strata may be called in question as having been assigned to too early a period.

(3) Then (in the third place) comes the objection that the eoliths carry Man's existence too far back; having regard to the general development of the larger mammals, Pliocene Man might be accepted, but ‘Oligocene’ Man is considered incredible. Moreover the period of time which has elapsed since the Oligocene period must be of enormous length.

(4) In the last place will be mentioned criticism of the distribution of the eolithic type (Obermaier[37], 1908).

(1) Having regard to the first of these arguments, the balance of evidence appears so even and level that it is hardly possible to enter judgment on this alone. But experiments recently carried out by Mr Moir, and in Belgium by Munck and Ghilain (1907; cf. Grist[38], 1910) should do much to settle this point.

Moreover the ‘wash-tub’ observations in cement-factories (Boule, 1905) prove too much, for it is alleged that among the flint-refuse, fragments resembling Magdalenian or even Neolithic implements were found. Yet such forms are not recorded in association with the comparatively shapeless eoliths. Further experiments are desirable, but so far they support Professor Rutot and his school rather than their opponents.

(2) The position of the eoliths and the accuracy with which their immediate surroundings are determined may be impugned in some instances, but this does not apply to Mr Moir's finds at Ipswich, nor to the Pliocene eoliths found by Mr Grist[38] at Dewlish (1910).

(3) While the general evidence of palaeontology may be admitted as adverse to the existence of so highly-evolved a mammal as Man in the earlier Tertiary epochs, yet the objection is of the negative order and for this reason it must be discounted to some extent. If the lapse of time be objected to, Dr Sturge[39] (1909) is ready to adduce evidence of glacial action upon even Neolithic flints, and to propose a base-line for the commencement of the Neolithic phase no less than 300,000 years ago.

(4) The distribution of the implements finds a weak spot in the defences of the eolithic partisans. It is alleged that eoliths are almost always flints: and that they occur with and among other flints, and but rarely elsewhere. Palaeoliths (of flint) also occur among other flints, but they are not thus limited in their association. This distinction is admitted by some at least of the supporters of the ‘artefact’ nature of the eoliths, and the admission certainly weakens their case.

The question is thus far from the point of settlement, and it may well continue to induce research and discussion for years to come. That a final settlement for the very earliest stages is practically unattainable will be conceded, when the earliest conditions are recalled in imagination. For when a human being first employed stones as implements, natural forms with sharp points or edges would be probably selected. The first early attempts to improvise these or to restore a blunted point or edge would be so erratic as to be indistinguishable (in the result) from the effects of fortuitous collisions. While such considerations are legitimately applicable to human artefacts of Oligocene or Miocene antiquity, they might well appear to be less effective when directed to the Pleistocene representatives where signs of progress might be expected. Yet Professor Rutot (1911) does not distinguish even the Pleistocene Reutelian from the Oligocene (eolithic) forms. If, on such evidence as this, early Pleistocene Man be recognised, Oligocene Man must needs be accepted likewise. Professor Rutot's mode of escape from this difficult position is interesting and instructive, if not convincing. It is effected by way of the assumption that in regard to his handiwork, Man (some say a tool-making precursor of Man) was in a state of stagnation throughout the ages which witnessed the rise and fall of whole genera of other mammals. That this proposition is untrue, can never be demonstrated. On the other hand, the proposition may be true, and therefore the unprejudiced will maintain an open mind, pending the advent of more conclusive evidence than has been adduced hitherto.