Conclusion.

see captionFig. 28. Various thigh-bones arranged to shew the alleged similarity betweenAOrang-utan andBAurignac man, as also betweenCNeanderthal andDGorilla.AandB, while resembling each other, are to be contrasted withCandD. They are referred to as the A/O and N/G groups. (From Klaatsch.)

Fig. 28. Various thigh-bones arranged to shew the alleged similarity betweenAOrang-utan andBAurignac man, as also betweenCNeanderthal andDGorilla.AandB, while resembling each other, are to be contrasted withCandD. They are referred to as the A/O and N/G groups. (From Klaatsch.)

The further development of the story includes the following propositions. The more primitive andGorilla-like Neanderthal type is introduced into Europe as an invader from Africa. Then (at a subsequent epoch probably) an Asiatic invasion followed. The new-comers owning descent from an Orang-utan-like forerunner are represented by the Aurignac skeleton and its congeners. In various respects they represented a higher type not only in conformation but in other directions. Having mingled with the Neanderthal tribes, whether by way of conquest or pacific penetration, a hybrid type resulted. Such was the origin of the Cro-magnon race.

The hypothesis has been severely handled, by none more trenchantly than by Professor Keith[50]. A notable weakness is exposed in the attribution to the ancestors of the Orang-utan so close an association to any human ancestral forms, as Professor Klaatsch demands. To those familiar with the general anatomy of the Orang-utan (i.e.the anatomy of parts other than the skeleton) the difficulties are very apparent.

Another effect of the hypothesis is that the so-called Neanderthaloid resemblances of the aborigines of Australia are very largely if not entirely subverted. This would not matter so much, but for the very decided stress laid by Professor Klaatsch upon the significance of those resemblances (cf. Klaatsch, 1909, p. 579, ‘Die Neanderthalrasse besitzt zahlreiche australoide Anklänge’). Again in earlier days, ProfessorKlaatsch supported a view whereby the Australian continent was claimed as the scene of initial stages in Man's evolution. Finally, up to the year 1908, Professor Klaatsch was amongst the foremost of those who demand absolute exclusion of the Orang-utan and the Gorilla from any participation in the scheme of human ancestry.

Having regard to such facts and to such oscillations of opinion, it is not surprising that this recent attempt to demonstrate a ‘diphyletic’ or ‘polyphyletic’ mode of human descent should fail to convince most of those competent to pronounce upon its merits.

Yet with all its defects, this attempt must not be ignored. Crude as the present demonstration may be, the possibility of its survival in a modified form should be taken into account. These reflections (but not necessarily the theory) may be supported in various ways. By a curious coincidence, Professor Keith, in rebutting the whole hypothesis, makes a statement not irrelevant in this connexion. For he opines that ‘the characters which separate these two types of men (viz. the Aurignac and Neanderthal types) are exactly of the same character and of the same degree as separate a blood-horse from a shire-stallion.’ Now some zoologists have paid special attention to such differences, when engaged in attempts to elucidate the ancestry of the modern types of horse. As a result of their studies, ProfessorsCossar Ewart and Osborn (and Professor Ridgeway's name should be added to theirs) agree that proofs have been obtained of the ‘multiple nature of horse evolution’ (Osborn). If we pass to other but allied animals, we may notice that coarser and finer types of Hipparion (H. crassumandH. gracile)have been contrasted with each other. A step further brings us to the Peat-hog problem (Torf-Schwein Frageof German writers), and in the discussion of this the more leggy types of swine are contrasted with the more stocky forms. Owen (in 1846) relied on similar points for distinguishing the extinct species of Bovidae (Oxen) from one another. The contrast maybe extended even to the Proboscidea, for Dr Leith Adams believed that the surest test of the limb bones ofE. antiquuswas their stoutness in comparison with those ofE. primigenius. This is the very character relied upon by Professor Klaatsch in contrasting the corresponding parts of the human and ape skeletons concerned. But such analogies must not be pressed too far. They have been adduced only with a view to justifying the contention that the diphyletic scheme of Professor Klaatsch may yet be modified to such an extent as to receive support denied to it in its present form.

D. In commenting upon the hypothesis expounded by Professor Klaatsch, mention was made of its bearing upon the status of the Cro-Magnonrace. This is but part of a wide subject, viz. the attempt to trace in descent certain modern European types. It is necessary to mention the elaborate series of memoirs now proceeding from the pen of Dr Schliz[51], who postulates four stocks at least as the parent forms of the mass of European populations of to-day. Of these four, the Neanderthal type is regarded as the most ancient. But it is not believed to have been extirpated. On the contrary its impress in modern Europe is still recognisable, veiled though it may be in combination with any of the remaining three. The latter are designated the Cro-Magnon, Engis, and Truchère-Grenelle types, the last-mentioned being broad-headed as contrasted with all the rest. Of Professor Schliz' work it is hard to express a final opinion, save that while its comprehensive scope (without excessive regard to craniometry as such) is a feature of great value, yet it appears to lack the force of criticism based upon extensive anatomical,i.e.osteological study.

E. The remarkable change in Professor Klaatsch's views on the part played by the anthropoid apes in human ancestral history has been already mentioned. In earlier days the Simiidae were literally set aside by Professor Klaatsch. But although the anthropoid monkeys have gained an adherent, they still find their claim to distinction most energetically combated by Professor Giuffrida-Ruggeri[52]. The latter declaresthat though he now (1911) repeats his views, it is but a repetition of such as he, following De Quatrefages, has long maintained. In this matter also, the last word will not be said for some time to come.

F. The significance of the peculiar characters of massiveness and cranial flattening as presented by the Neanderthal type of skeleton continues to stimulate research. In addition to the scattered remarks already made on these subjects, two recently-published views demand special notice.

(i) Professor Keith has (1911) been much impressed with the exuberance of bone-formation, and the parts it affects in the disease known as Acromegaly. The disease seems dependent upon an excessive activity of processes regulated by a glandular body in the floor of the brain-case (the pituitary gland). The suggestion is now advanced that a comparatively slight increase in activity might result in the production of such ‘Neanderthaloid’ characters as massive brow-ridges and limb bones. (Of existing races, some of the aborigines of Australia would appear to exemplify this process, but to a lesser degree than the extinct type, since the aboriginal limb bones are exempt.) Professor Keith adopts the view that the Neanderthal type is ancestral to the modern types. And his argument seems to run further to the following effect: that the evolution of the modern from theNeanderthal type of man was consequent on a change in the activity of the pituitary gland.

It is quite possible that the agency to be considered in the next paragraph, viz. climatic environment, may play a part in influencing pituitary and other secretions. But heavy-browed skulls (and heavy brows are distinctive tests of the glandular activity under discussion) are not confined to particular latitudes, so that there are preliminary difficulties to be overcome in the further investigation of this point. It is possible that the glandular activity occasionally assumed pathological intensity even in prehistoric times. Thus a human skull with Leontiasis ossea was discovered near Rheims at a depth of fifteen feet below the level of the surrounding surface.

(ii) Dr Sera[53](1910) has been led to pay particular attention to the remarkably flattened cranial vaulting so often mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. As a rule, this flattening has been regarded as representative of a stage in the evolution of a highly-developed type of human skull from a more lowly, in fact a more simian one. This conclusion is challenged by Dr Sera. The position adopted is that a flattened skull need not in every case owe its presence to such a condition as an early stage in evolution assigns to it. Environment, for which we may here read climatic conditions, is a possible and alternative influence.

If sufficient evidence can be adduced to shew that the flattened cranial arc in the Neanderthal skull does actually owe its origin to physiological factors through which environment acts, the status of that type of skull in the evolutionary sequence will be materially affected. A successful issue of the investigation will necessitate a thorough revision of all the results of Professor Schwalbe's work[54], which established the Neanderthal type as a distinct species (Homo primigenius) followed closely and not preceded by a type represented by the Gibraltar skull. Dr Sera commenced with a very minute examination of the Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. In particular, the characters of the face and the basal parts of the cranium were subjected to numerous and well-considered tests. As a first result of the comparison of the parts common to both crania, Dr Sera believes that he is in a position to draw correct inferences for the Neanderthal skull-cap in regard to portions absent from it but present in the Forbes Quarry skull.

But in the second place, Dr Sera concludes that the characters in question reveal the fact that of the two, the Gibraltar skull is quite distinctly the lowlier form. And the very important opinion is expressed that the Gibraltar skull offers the real characters of a human being caught as it were in a lowly stage of evolution beyond which the Neanderthal skulltogether with all others of its class have already passed. The final extension of these arguments is also of remarkable import. The Gibraltar skull is flattened owing to its low place in evolution. But as regards the flatness of the brain-case (called the platycephalic character) of the Neanderthal calvaria and its congeners (as contrasted with the Gibraltar specimen), Dr Sera suggests dependence upon the particular environment created by glacial conditions. The effect is almost pathological, at least the boundary-line between such physiological flattening and that due to pathological processes is hard to draw. Upon this account therefore, Dr Sera's researches have been considered here in close association with the doctrines of Professor Keith.

Dr Sera supports his argument by an appeal to existing conditions: he claims demonstration of the association (regarded by him as one of cause and effect) between arctic latitudes or climate on the one hand, and the flattening of the cranial vault on the other. Passing lightly over the Eskimo, although they stand in glaring contradiction to his view, he instances above all the Ostiak tribe of hyperborean Asia. The platycephalic character has a geographical distribution. Thus the skull is well arched in Northern Australia, but towards the south, in South Australia and Tasmania, the aboriginal skull is much less arched. It is thus shewn to becomemore distinctly platycephalic towards the antarctic regions, or at least in the regions of the Australian Continent considered by Professor Penck to have been glaciated. So too among the Bush natives of South Africa as contrasted with less southern types.

The demonstration of a latitudinal distribution in the New World is complicated by the presence of the great Cordillera of the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Great altitudes are held by Dr Sera to possess close analogy with arctic or antarctic latitudes. Therefore the presence of flat heads (artificial deformation being excluded) in equatorial Venezuela is not surprising.

It is felt that the foregoing statement, though made with every endeavour to secure accuracy, gives but an imperfect idea of the extent of Dr Sera's work. Yet in this place, nothing beyond the briefest summary is permissible. By way of criticism, it cannot be too strongly urged that the Eskimo provide a head-form exactly the converse of that postulated by Dr Sera as the outcome of ‘glacial conditions.’ Not that Dr Sera ignores this difficulty, but he brushes it aside with treatment which is inadequate. Moreover, the presence of the Aurignac man with a comparatively well-arched skull, following him of the Mousterian period, is also a difficulty. For the climate did not become suddenly cold at the endof the Mousterian period, and so far as evidence of arctic human surroundings goes, the fauna did not become less arctic in the Aurignac phase.

In section A of this chapter, an outline was given of the mode in which the evolution of the human form appears to be traceable backwards through the Neanderthal type to still earlier stages in which the human characters are so elementary as to be recognisable only with difficulty.

Then (B) the considerations militating against unquestioning acquiescence in that view were grouped in sequence, commencing with the difficulties introduced by the acceptance (in all its significance) of the Galley Hill skeleton. From an entirely different point of view (C), it was shewn that many difficulties may be solved by the recognition of more than one primordial stock of human ancestors. Lastly (F) came the modifications of theory necessitated by appeals to the powerful influence of physiological factors, acting in some cases quite obscurely, in others having relation to climate and food.

The impossibility of summing up in favour of one comprehensive scheme will be acknowledged. Moreresearch is needed; the flatness of a cranial arc is but one of many characters awaiting research. At the present time a commencement is being made with regard to the shape and proportions of the cavity bounded by the skull. From such characters we may aspire to learn something of the brain which was once active within those walls. Yet to-day the researches of Professors Keith and Anthony provide little more than the outlines of a sketch to which the necessary details can only be added after protracted investigation.

It is tempting to look back to the time of the publication of Sir Charles Lyell's ‘Antiquity of Man.’ There we may find the author's vindication of his claims (made fifty years ago) for the greater antiquity of man. In comparison with that antiquity, Lyell believed the historical period ‘would appear quite insignificant in duration.’ As to the course of human evolution, it was possible even at that early date to quote Huxley's opinion ‘that the primordial stock whence man has proceeded need no longer be sought ... in the newer tertiaries, but that they may be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of the Elephas primigenius than that is from us.’

The human fossils at the disposal of those authors included the Neanderthal, the Engis, and the Denise bones. With the Neanderthal specimen we have (as already seen) to associate now a continually increasingnumber of examples. And (to mention the most recent discovery only) the Ipswich skeleton (p. 151) provides in its early surroundings a problem as hard to solve as those of the Engis skull and the ‘fossil man of Denise.’ But we have far more valuable evidence than Lyell and Huxley possessed, since the incomparable remains from Mauer and Trinil provide an interest as superior on the anatomical side as that claimed in Archaeology by the Sub-crag implements.

Turning once more to the subject of human remains, the evolution of educated opinion and the oscillations of the latter deserve a word of notice. For instance, in 1863, the Engis skull received its full and due share of attention. Then in a period marked by the discoveries at Spy and Trinil, the claims of the Engis fossil fell somewhat into abeyance. To-day we see them again and even more in evidence. So it has been with regard to details. At one period, the amount of brain contained within the skull of the Neanderthal man was underestimated. Then that opinion was exchanged for wonder at the disproportionately large amount of space provided for the brain in the man of La Chapelle. The tableau is changed again, and we think less of the Neanderthal type and of its lowly position (in evolutionary history). Our thoughts are turned to a much more extended period to be allotted to the evolution of the higher types. Adaptations to climatic influences, the possibilities of degeneracy,of varying degrees of physiological activity, of successful (though at first aberrant) mutations all demand attention in the present state of knowledge.

If progress since the foundations were laid by the giant workers of half a century ago appears slow and the advance negligible, let the extension of our recognition of such influences and possibilities be taken into account. The extraordinarily fruitful results of excavations during the last ten years may challenge comparison with those of any other period of similar duration.

The forecast, made when the manuscript of the first impression of this little book was completed, and in reference to the rapid accumulation of evidence, has been justified.

While it would be impossible to provide a review of all the additional literature of the last few months, it is thought reasonable to append notes on two subjects mentioned previously only in the preface.

(A) A short account of the ‘La Quina’ skeleton has now appeared (in ‘L'Anthropologie,’ 1911, No. 6, p. 730).

The skull is of the form described so often above, as distinctive of the Neanderthaloid type, but the brow-ridges seem even more massive than in the other examples of that race. The cranial sutures are unclosed, so that the individual is shewn to be of mature age, or at any rate, not senile. The teeth are, however, much worn down. Nearly all the teeth have been preserved in situ, and they present certain features which have been observed in the teeth found in Jersey (S. Brélade's Cave).

The skeleton lay in a horizontal position, but no evidence of an interment has been adduced. The bones were less than a metre below the present surface, and in a fine mud-like deposit, apparently ancient, and of a river-bed type. Implements were also found, and are referred unhesitatingly to the same horizon as the bones. The Mousterian period is thus indicated, but no absolutely distinctive implements were found. The general stratigraphical conditions are considered to assign the deposit to the base of what is termed the ‘inferior Mousterian’ level.

(B) The ‘sub-boulder-clay’ skeleton, discovered near Ipswich in 1911, was in an extraordinarily contracted attitude. Many parts are absent or imperfect, owing to the solvent action of the surroundings, but what remains is sufficient to reveal several features of importance (cf.fig. 29).

Save in one respect, the skeleton is not essentially different from those of the existing representatives of humanity. The exception is provided by the shin-bone. That of the right limb has been preserved, and it presents an anomaly unique in degree, if not in kind, viz.: the substitution of a rounded for a sharp or keel-like edge to the front of the bone. It can hardly be other than an individual peculiarity, though the Spy tibia (No. 1) suggests (by its sectional contour) the same conformation.

So far as the skeleton is concerned, even having regard to the anomaly just mentioned, there is no good reason for assigning the Ipswich specimen to a separate racial type.

Its interest depends largely upon the circumstances of its surroundings. It was placed beneath about four feet of ‘boulder-clay,’ embedded partly in this and, to a much smaller extent, in the underlying middle-glacial sand which the bones just entered.

There is some evidence that the surface on which the bones lay was at one time exposed as an old ‘land-surface.’ A thin band of carbonised vegetable matter (not far beneath the bones) contains the remains of land plants. On this surface the individual whose remains have been preserved is supposed to have met with his end, and to have been overwhelmed in a sand drift. The latter it must be supposed was then removed, to be replaced by the boulder-clay.

Several alternatives to this rather problematical interpretation could be suggested. The most obvious of these is that we have to deal here with a neolithic interment, in a grave of which the floor just reached the middle-glacial sand of the locality. If we enquire what assumptions are requisite for the adoption of thisparticular alternative, we shall find, I think, that they are not very different in degree from those which are entailed by the supposition that the skeleton is really that of ‘sub-boulder-clay’ man.

The contracted attitude of the skeleton, and our familiarity of this as a feature of neolithic interments, taken together with the fact that the skeleton does not differ essentially from such as occur in interments of that antiquity, are points in favour of the neolithic age of the specimen. On the other hand, Mr Moir would urge that man certainly existed in an age previous to the deposition of the boulder-clay; that the implements discovered in that stratum support this claim; that the recent discovery of the bones of a mammoth on the same horizon (though not in the immediate vicinity) provides further support; that the state of mineralisation of the bones was the same in both cases, and that it is at least significant that they should be found on strata shewn (by other evidence) to have once formed a ‘land-surface.’

On the whole then, the view adopted here is, that the onus of proof rests at present rather with those who, rejecting these claims to the greater antiquity of this skeleton, assign it to a far later date than that to which even the overlying Boulder-clay is referred. And, so far as the literature is at present available, the rejection does not seem to have been achieved with a convincing amount of certainty.

It is to be remarked, finally, that this discovery is entirely distinct from those made previously by Mr Moir in the deposits beneath the Red Crag of Suffolk, with which his name has become associated.

see captionFig. 29. Human skeleton found beneath Boulder-clay near Ipswich in 1911. (From the drawing prepared by Professor Keith, and published in theEast Anglian Daily Times. Reproduced with permission.)

Fig. 29. Human skeleton found beneath Boulder-clay near Ipswich in 1911. (From the drawing prepared by Professor Keith, and published in theEast Anglian Daily Times. Reproduced with permission.)

CHAPTER I

[1]Dubois, 1894. Pithecanthropus, ein Übergangsform, &c.

[2]Blanckenhorn, 1910. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Band 42, S. 337.

[3]Schwalbe, 1899. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie. From 1899 onwards.

[4]Berry, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,XXXI.Part 1. 1910.

[5]Cross, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,XXXI.Part 1. 1910.

[6]Schoetensack, 1908. Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis.

[7]Keith, 1911. Lancet, March 18, 1911, abstract of the Hunterian Lectures.

[8]Dubois, 1896. Anatomischer Anzeiger. BandXII.S. 15.

CHAPTERS II AND III

[9]Avebury (Lubbock), 1868. International Congress for Prehistoric Archaeology.

[10]Turner, 1864 (quoting Busk). Quarterly Journal of Science, Oct. 1864, p. 760.

[11]Nehring, 1895. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1895, S. 338.

[12]Kramberger, 1899. Mittheilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft zu Wien. “Der Mensch von Krapina.” Wiesbaden, 1906.

[13]Marett, Archaeologia, 1911; also Keith, 1911. Nature, May 25, 1911. Keith and Knowles, Journal of Anatomy, 1911.

[14]Boule, 1908. L'Anthropologie. TomeXIX.p. 519.

[15]Klaatsch and Hauser, 1908. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, 1909, p. 287.

[16]Peyrony (and Capitan), 1909-1910. Bulletins de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, Jan. 20, 1910.

[17]Sollas, 1907. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Vol. 199B.

[18]Sera, 1909. Atti della Società romana di Antropologia, xv. fasc.II.

[19]Verner, 1910. Ann. Rep. Hunterian Museum. R.C.S. London. Saturday Review, Sep. 16, 1911, and five following numbers.

[20]Verneau, 1906. L'Anthropologie. TomeXVII.

[21]Lehmann-Nitsche, 1907. Rivista del Museo de la Plata,XIV.1907.

[22]Lehmann-Nitsche, 1909. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift, Jena,VIII.42.

[23]Klaatsch, 1909. Prähistorische Zeitschrift,I.

[24]Newton, 1895. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, August, 1895.

[25]Schwalbe, 1906. “Der Schädel von Brüx.” Zeitsch. für Morphologie und Anthropologie.

[26]Hinton, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. Vol.XXI.Part 10. 1910.

CHAPTER IV

[27]Gaudry, 1888. Les ancêtres de nos animaux.

[28]Schmidt, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, S. 62, 1909.

[29]Commont, 1908. L'Anthropologie. TomeXIX.p. 527.

[30]Obermaier and Bayer, 1909. Korrespondenzblatt der Wiener anthropologischen Gesellschaft,XL.9/12.

[31]Rutot, 1900. Congrès international d'Archéologie préhistorique. Paris, 1900.

[31]Rutot, 1904, ?1903. Quoted in Schwalbe 1906. “Vorgeschichte, usw.” Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.

[31]Rutot, 1911. Revue de l'Université. Brussels, 1911.

[32]Penck, 1908. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. BandXL.S. 390.

[33]Laville, 1910. Bulletin de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1910.

[34]Moir, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, July 16, 1910. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 1911.

[35]Warren, 1905. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.XXXV., 1905, p. 337.

[36]Boule, 1905. L'Anthropologie. TomeXVI.“Sur l'origine des Eolithes.”

[37]Obermaier, 1908. L'Anthropologie. TomeXIX.p. 613 (abstract), also p. 460 (abstract).

[38]Grist, 1910. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.XL.1910, p. 192.

[39]Sturge, 1909. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, January 1909 (published in 1911).

CHAPTER V

[40]Falconer. 1865. Collected Memoirs. Vol.II.p. 587.

[41]Geikie, A. 1863. Text-book of Geology, 1903, p. 1312 and footnoteibidem.

[42]Skertchley, 1878. The Fenland, p. 551.

[43]Boule, 1888. Revue d'Anthropologie, “Essai de stratigraphie humaine.”

[44]Hoernes, 1903. Urgeschichte des Menschen. (2nd Edn., 1908.)

[45]Obermaier, 1909. L'Anthropologie. TomeXX.p. 521.

[46]Sollas, 1908. Science Progress in the XXth Century, “Palaeolithic Man.” (Reprinted in book-form, 1911.)

[47]Boyd Dawkins, 1910. Huxley Lecture. Royal Anthropological Institute, 1911.

CHAPTER VI

[48]Gaudry, 1878. Mammifères tertiaires.

[49]Klaatsch, 1909. Prähistorische Zeitschrift. BandI.

[50]Keith, 1911. Nature, Feb. 16, 1911 ... also Dec. 15, 1910.

[51]Schliz, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, Ss. 239 et seq. “Die vorgeschichtlichen Schädeltypen der deutschen Länder.”

[52]Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la Etnologia,XL.2.

[53]Sera, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la Etnologia,XL.fasc. 3/4.

[54]Schwalbe, 1906. “Vorgeschichte des Menschen,” Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.

Birkner. Beiträge zur Urgeschichte Bayerns. BdXVII.3/4. 1909.

Branco. Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, 1910.

Buttel-Reepen. Aus dem Werdegang der Menschheit. 1911.

Giuffrida-Ruggeri. “Applicazioni, &c.” Monitore Zoologico Italiano. No. 2. 1910. Rivista d'Italia. Agosto, 1911.

Keith. Hunterian Lectures, 1911. Ancient types of Mankind, 1911.

Kohlbrugge. Die morphologische Abstammung des Menschen, 1908.

Lankester. The Kingdom of Man. 1906.

Leche. Der Mensch. 1911.

McCurdy. “The Antiquity of Man in Europe.” Smithsonian Report (1909), p. 531. 1910.

Read and Smith, R. A. Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone Age. British Museum, 1911.

Rutot. Revue de l'Université. Bruxelles, January 1911.

Schwalbe. Darwin and Modern Science (Centenary volume), Cambridge, 1909.

Sollas. Palaeolithic Man. (Cf. No. 46 supra.) 1911.

Spulski. Zentralblatt für Zoologie. Band 17. Nos. 3/4. 1910.

Wright. Hunterian Lectures, Royal College of Surgeons, 1907.

Back to Index Next