CHAPTER IV

ASSOCIATED ANIMALS AND IMPLEMENTS

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