the evidence of the actual remains, but also that furnished by their surroundings has been called upon. It is evid

t in which the characters of the skeletons are taken as the test, and (2) that dependent upon the nature of the surroun

he respective skeletons. Thus Division II with Subdivision B heads the list. Then follows Subdivision A, and finally Division I will be fou

le. 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 t

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 s

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 localitie

dicative 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 extin

associate, Rhinoceros etruscus. The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable to these, nor to the Trogontheri

ion 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

r Sands and the high-level terrace gravels. Within the limits thus indicated, the deposit of Mauer is again shewn to be the oldest, follo

not been discussed. It will suffice to note that on the whole they indica

e 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 mercki

ound in the deepest strata of this cave: but I do not consider that adequate evidence is given of its contemporaneit

rtant 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

vironment. 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 c

e cave-finds are assignable to a period later in time than that in which the fluviatile deposits (previous

n 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

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 re

ciation with the fossil remains at Mauer and Trinil (Java). Yet in the absence of evidence, it must not be concluded that the contemporary represe

nts of one and the same type, viz. the Mousterian, so called from the locality (L

ition assigned to it, for as in the previous columns, it disag

nts mentioned in the table, it will be found that all without exception are described as of Palaeolithic type. Indeed they furnish l

ong 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 sepa

inguished not only in position and sequence but also by the successive types of stone implements related to the several

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)

tion 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, furnishe

BL

e of Imple

Sirg

uperficia

lit

ermediate

eoli

m at Ofnet Magdal

atus (the Ba

na of a northern c

er, Mammoth

inus an

Aurig

nstein - Mousterian Myodes

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

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 ri

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

through the researches of Messrs Commont, Obermaier[30], and Bayer[30]. The importance of such results is extraordinarily far-re

tual human remains. For in the nature of things, implements will be preserv

LE

] B. Alluv

2) S. Acheul (Tellier)[3] Willendorf (A

onze

2. Neolith

te 3. Azil

gdalenian Magdalen

tréan - S

nacian - A

erian - -

- - A

- - C

"Industrie

cheulean and Chellean imple

hmidt,

mmont,

ier and Ba

e that of the antiquity of Man as indic

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 th

illoux in France, Chellean implements are associated with Elephas meridionalis, a species destined to become extinct in very early Pleistocene times. Near

cene 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 temptin

stocene

ithic types

Azi

ves as well as in

agda

olut

urig

oust

has a Pliocene aspect. High-level ter

ontinent has Pliocene a

eleton. High-level terrace,

surface of chalk-plateau,

l skeleton (Rutot, 1903)

Reutelian implement is "eolithic," and is found unchanged in stages

ne period is estimated at abo

ocene

ian (Reu

cene P

alian (R

gocene

ian (Reu

cene

r French sites: not definitel

follow, should the tabulated suggestions

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

representatives of yet older and more primitive stages in the evolution of these objects. As remarked above (Chapter III), the Mauer jaw is referre

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 deno

in the demonstration of a succession of types from the more perfect to the less finished, arranged in correspondence with

in Belgium, and finds the same Reutelian type in all. The names Kentian, Cantalian, and Fag

ew 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

ough doubtless their most energetic advocate at the present day. We must admire the industry which has conferred upon this subject the supp

fessor Rutot's hands (1911), it is otherwise with those ascribed to the Oligocene period. Mr Moir[34] of Ipswich has l

on of the so-called 'eoliths' as

uration of Miocene, Pliocene and

of level of lowest snow

ere 'eolithic im

odern Horse. The claim of Anchitherium to occupy the po

tives of ancestral for

of the snow-line is to be noticed, and the oscillations of the s

, 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

h the strata wherein they were found, or the geological age of those stra

d to the general development of the larger mammals, Pliocene Man might be accepted, but 'Oligocene' Man is consider

ed criticism of the distribution of t

at it is hardly possible to enter judgment on this alone. But experiments recently carried out by Mr Mo

ments resembling Magdalenian or even Neolithic implements were found. Yet such forms are not recorded in association with the comparativel

s are determined may be impugned in some instances, but this does not apply to Mr Moir'

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 t

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 ass

sult) 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 fr