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.

+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ | | Type of Implement | | | Levels +-----------+-----------+ Fauna | | | Ofnet |Sirgenstein| | +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+ |A. Most superficial| -- | Bronze | | | | | | | | | Neolithic | -- | | | | | | | |B. 1. Intermediate | Azilian | -- | | | | | | | | Palaeolithic | | | | | | | 2. Deepest |Magdalenian|Magdalenian|} Myodes torquatus (the | | stratum at | | |} Banded Lemming) | | Ofnet | | |} | | | | |} | | 3. | -- | Solutréan |} Fauna of a northern | | | | |} character throughout: | | | | |} with Reindeer, | | 4. | -- |Aurignacian|} Mammoth, Rhinoceros | | | | |} tichorhinus and Horse | | | | |} | | 5. Deepest | -- |Mousterian |} Myodes obensis (a | | stratum at | | | Siberian Lemming) | | Sirgenstein | | | | +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+

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.

+---------------------------------------------+ | A. Caves[1] | +-----------------+-------------+-------------+ | Type of | Ofnet[2] | Sirgenstein | | Implement | | [2] | | | | | +-----------------+-------------+-------------+ | 1.| | Bronze | | | | | | Neolithic 2.| Neolithic | -- | | | | | | Intermediate 3.| Azilian | -- | | | | | | Palaeolithic 4.| Magdalenian | Magdalenian | | | | | | 5.| -- | Solutréan | | | | | | 6.| -- | Aurignacian | | | | | | 7.| -- | Mousterian | | | | | | 8.| -- | -- | | | | | | 9.| -- | -- | | | | | | 10.| -- | -- | | | | | +-----------------+-------------+-------------+

+-----------------------------------------+ | B. Alluvial deposits | +-------------+-------------+-------------+ | S. Acheul | Willendorf | S. Acheul | | (Tellier) | (Austria) | (Tellier, | | [3] | [4] | etc.)[3] | +-------------+-------------+-------------+ | -- | -- | -- | | | | | | -- | -- | -- | | | | | | -- | -- | -- | | | | | | Magdalenian | -- | -- | | | | | | -- | Solutréan | -- | | | | | | -- | Aurignacian | -- | | | | | | -- | -- | Mousterian | | | | | | -- | -- | Acheulean | | | | | | -- | -- | Chellean | | | | | | -- | -- | "Industrie | | | | grossière" | +-------------+-------------+-------------+

[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.

A. _Pleistocene Period._

(All Palaeolithic types except No. 1.)

1. Azilian } } 2. Magdalenian } } 3. Solutréan } Types found in caves as well as in alluvial deposits. } 4. Aurignacian } } 5. Mousterian }

6. Acheulean. Fauna of S.-E. Britain has a Pliocene aspect. High-level terrace of Thames valley (Hinton, 1910).

7. Chellean. Fauna of Continent has Pliocene affinities (Hinton, 1910).

8. Strépyan. Galley Hill Skeleton. High-level terrace, Thames basin (Rutot, 1911).

9. Mesvinian. Implements on surface of chalk-plateau, Ightham, Kent (Rutot, 1900).

10. Mafflian. Galley Hill skeleton (Rutot, 1903). Mauer jaw (Rutot, 1911).

11. Reutelian. High-level terrace of Thames basin, Rutot, 1900. The Reutelian implement is "eolithic," and is found unchanged in stages assigned to the Pliocene, Miocene and Oligocene periods (Rutot, 1911).

The duration of the Pleistocene period is estimated at about 139,000 years (Rutot, 1904).

B. _Pliocene Period._

12. Kentian (Reutelian).

C. _Miocene Period._

13. Cantalian (Reutelian).

D. _Oligocene Period._

14. Fagnian (Reutelian).

E. _Eocene Period._

15. [Eoliths of Duan and other French sites: not definitely recognised in 1911 by Rutot.]

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.