Man, Past and Present.

by Agustus Henry Keane and A. Hingston Quiggin and Alfred Court Haddon.

PREFACE

Those who are familiar with the vast amount of ethnological literature published since the close of last century will realize that to revise and bring up to date a work whose range in s.p.a.ce and time covers the whole world from prehistoric ages down to the present day, is a task impossible of accomplishment within the compa.s.s of a single volume.

Recent discoveries have revolutionized our conception of primeval man, while still providing abundant material for controversy, and the rapidly increasing pile of ethnographical matter, although a vast amount of spade work remains to be done, is but one sign of the remarkable interest in ethnology which is so conspicuous a feature of the present decade. Even to keep abreast of the periodical literature devoted to his subject provides ample occupation for the ethnologist and few are those who can now lay claim to such an omniscient t.i.tle.

Under such circ.u.mstances the faults of omission and compression could not be avoided in revising Professor Keane's work, but it is hoped that the copious references which form a prominent feature of the present edition will compensate in some measure for these obvious defects. The main object of the revisers has been to retain as much as possible of the original text wherever it fairly represents current opinion at the present time, but so different is our outlook from that of 1899 that certain sections have had to be entirely rewritten and in many places pages have been suppressed to make room for more important information.

In every case where new matter has been inserted references are given to the responsible authorities and the fullest use has been made of direct quotation from the authors cited.

Mrs Hingston Quiggin is responsible for the whole work of revision with the exception of Chapter XI, revised by Miss Lilian Whitehouse, while Dr A. C. Haddon has criticized, corrected and supervised the work throughout.

A. H. Q.

A. C. H.

10 _October_, 1919.

CHAPTER I

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The World peopled by Migration from one Centre by Pleistocene Man--The Primary Groups evolved each in its special Habitat-- Pleistocene Man: _Pithecanthropus erectus_; The Mauer jaw, _h.o.m.o Heidelbergensis_; The Piltdown skull, _Eoanthropus Dawsoni_--General View of Pleistocene Man--The first Migrations--Early Man and his Works--Cla.s.sification of Human Types: _H. primigenius_, Neandertal or Mousterian Man; _H. recens_, Galley Hill or Aurignacian Man-- Physical Types--Human Culture: Reutelian, Mafflian, Mesvinian, Strepyan, Ch.e.l.lean, Acheulean, Mousterian, Aurignacian, Solutrian, Magdalenian, Azilian--Chronology--The early History of Man a Geological Problem--The Human Varieties the Outcome of their several Environments--Correspondence of Geographical with Racial and Cultural Zones.

In order to a clear understanding of the many difficult questions connected with the natural history of the human family, two cardinal points have to be steadily borne in mind--the specific unity of all existing varieties, and the dispersal of their generalised precursors over the whole world in pleistocene times. As both points have elsewhere been dealt with by me somewhat fully[1], it will here suffice to show their direct bearing on the general evolution of the human species from that remote epoch to the present day.

It must be obvious that, if man is specifically one, though not necessarily sprung of a single pair, he must have had, in homely language, a single cradle-land, from which the peopling of the earth was brought about by migration, not by independent developments from different species in so many independent geographical areas.

It follows further, and this point is all-important, that, since the world was peopled by pleistocene man, it was peopled by a generalised proto-human form, prior to all later racial differences. The existing groups, according to this hypothesis, have developed in different areas independently and divergently by continuous adaptation to their several environments. If they still const.i.tute mere varieties, and not distinct species, the reason is because all come of like pleistocene ancestry, while the divergences have been confined to relatively narrow limits, that is, not wide enough to be regarded zoologically as specific differences.

The battle between monogenists and polygenists cannot be decided until more facts are at our disposal, and much will doubtless be said on both sides for some time to come[2]. Among the views of human origins brought forward in recent years should be mentioned the daring theory of Klaatsch[3]. Recognising two distinct human types, Neandertal and Aurignac (see pp. 8, 9 below), and two distinct anthropoid types, gorilla and orang-utan, he derives Neandertal man and African gorilla from one common ancestor, and Aurignac man and Asiatic orang-utan from another. Though anatomists, especially those conversant with anthropoid structure[4], are not able to accept this view, they admit that many difficulties may be solved by the recognition of more than one primordial stock of human ancestors[5]. The questions of adaptation to climate and environment[6], the possibilities of degeneracy, the varying degrees of physiological activity, of successful mutations, the effects of crossing and all the complicated problems of heredity are involved in the discussion, and it must be acknowledged that our information concerning all of these is entirely inadequate.

Nevertheless all speculations on the subject are not based merely on hypotheses, and three discoveries of late years have provided solid facts for the working out of the problem.

These discoveries were the remains of _Pithecanthropus erectus_[7] in Java, in 1892, of the Mauer jaw[8], near Heidelberg, in 1907, and of the Piltdown skull[9] in Suss.e.x in 1912. Although the Mauer jaw was accepted without hesitation, the controversy concerning the correct interpretation of the Javan fossils has been raging for more than twenty years and shows no sign of abating, while _Eoanthropus Dawsoni_ is too recent an intruder into the arena to be fairly dealt with at present.

Certain facts however stand out clearly. In late pliocene or early pleistocene times certain early ancestral forms were already in existence which can scarcely be excluded from the _Hominidae_. In range they were as widely distributed as Java in the east to Heidelberg and Suss.e.x in the west, and in spite of divergence in type a certain correlation is not impossible, even if the Piltdown specimen should finally be regarded as representing a distinct genus[10]. Each contributes facts of the utmost importance for the tracing out of the history of human evolution. _Pithecanthropus_ raises the vexed question as to whether the erect att.i.tude or brain development came first in the story. The conjunction of pre-human braincase with human thighbone appeared to favour the popular view that the erect att.i.tude was the earlier, but the evidence of embryology suggests a reverse order. And although at first the thighbone was recognised as distinctly human it seems that of late doubts have been cast on this interpretation[11], and even the claim to the t.i.tle _erectus_ is called in question. The characters of straightness and slenderness on which much stress was laid are found in exaggerated form in gibbons and lemurs. The intermediate position in respect of mental endowment (in so far as brain can be estimated by cranial capacity) is shown in the accompanying diagram in which the cranial measurements of _Pithecanthropus_ are compared with those of a chimpanzee and prehistoric man. The teeth strengthen the evidence, for they are described as too large for a man and too small for an ape. Thus _Pithecanthropus_ has been confidently a.s.signed to a place in a branch of the human family tree.

[Ill.u.s.tration: POSITION OF P. ERECTUS.

(Manouvrier, _Bul. Soc. d'Anthrop._ 1896, p. 438.)]

The Mauer jaw, the geological age of which is undisputed, also represents intermediate characters. The extraordinary strength and thickness of bone, the wide ascending ramus with shallow sigmoid notch (distinctly simian features) and the total absence of chin[12] would deny it a place among human jaws, but the teeth, which are all fortunately preserved in their sockets, are not only definitely human, but show in certain peculiarities less simian features than are to be found in the dent.i.tion of modern man[13].

[Ill.u.s.tration: GENEALOGICAL TREE OF MAN'S ANCESTRY.

(A. Keith, _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915; fig. 187, p. 501.)]

The cranial capacity of the Piltdown skull, though variously estimated[14], is certainly greater than that of _Pithecanthropus_, the general outlines with steeply rounded forehead resemble that of modern man, and the bones are almost without exception typically human. The jaw, however, though usually attributed to the same individual[15], recalls the primitive features of the Mauer specimen in its thick ascending portion and shallow notch, while in certain characters it differs from any known jaw, ancient or modern[16]. The evidence afforded by the teeth is even more striking. The teeth of _Pithecanthropus_ and of _h.o.m.o Heidelbergensis_ were recognised as remarkably human, and although primitive in type, are far more advanced in the line of human evolution than the lowly features with which they are a.s.sociated would lead one to expect. The Piltdown teeth are more primitive in certain characters than those of either the Javan or the Heidelberg remains. The first molar has been compared to that of Taubach, the most ape-like of human or pre-human teeth hitherto recorded, but the canine tooth (found by P. Teilhard in the same stratum in 1913[17]) finds no parallel in any known human jaw; it resembles the milk canine of the chimpanzee more than that of the adult dent.i.tion.

It cannot be said that any clear view of pleistocene man can be obtained from these imperfect sc.r.a.ps of evidence, valuable though they are.

Rather may we agree with Keith that the problem grows more instead of less complex. "In our first youthful burst of Darwinianism we pictured our evolution as a simple procession of forms leading from ape to man.

Each age, as it pa.s.sed, transformed the men of the time one stage nearer to us--one more distant from the ape. The true picture is very different. We have to conceive an ancient world in which the family of mankind was broken up into narrow groups or genera, each genus again divided into a number of species--much as we see in the monkey or ape world of to-day. Then out of that great welter of forms one species became the dominant form, and ultimately the sole surviving one--the species represented by the modern races of mankind[18]."

We may a.s.sume therefore that the earth was mainly peopled by the generalised pleistocene precursors, who moved about, like the other migrating faunas, unconsciously, everywhere following the lines of least resistance, advancing or receding, and acting generally on blind impulse rather than of any set purpose.

That such must have been the nature of the first migratory movements will appear evident when we consider that they were carried on by rude hordes, all very much alike, and differing not greatly from other zoological groups, and further that these migrations took place prior to the development of all cultural appliances beyond the ability to wield a broken branch or a sapling, or else chip or flake primitive stone implements[19].

Herein lies the explanation of the curious phenomenon, which was a stumbling-block to premature systematists, that all the works of early man everywhere present the most startling resemblances, affording absolutely no elements for cla.s.sification, for instance, during the times corresponding with the Ch.e.l.lean or first period of the Old Stone Age. The implements of palaeolithic type so common in parts of South India, South Africa, the Sudan, Egypt, etc., present a remarkable resemblance to one another. This, while affording a _prima facies_ case for, is not conclusive of, the migrations of a definite type of humanity.

After referring to the ident.i.ty of certain objects from the Hastings kitchen-middens and a barrow near Sevenoaks, W. J. L. Abbot proceeds: "The first thing that would strike one in looking over a few trays of these implements is the remarkable likeness which they bear to those of Dordogne. Indeed many of the figures in the magnificent 'Reliquiae Aquitanicae' might almost have been produced from these specimens[20]."

And Sir J. Evans, extending his glance over a wider horizon, discovers implements in other distant lands "so identical in form and character with British specimens that they might have been manufactured by the same hands.... On the banks of the Nile, many hundreds of feet above its present level, implements of the European types have been discovered, while in Somaliland, in an ancient river valley, at a great elevation above the sea, Seton-Karr has collected a large number of implements formed of flint and quartzite, which, judging from their form and character, might have been dug out of the drift-deposits of the Somme and the Seine, the Thames or the ancient Solent[21]."

It was formerly held that man himself showed a similar uniformity, and all palaeolithic skulls were referred to one long-headed type, called, from the most famous example, the Neandertal, which was regarded as having close affinities with the present Australians. But this resemblance is shown by Boule[22] and others to be purely superficial, and recent archaeological finds indicate that more than one racial type was in existence in the Palaeolithic Age.

W. L. H. Duckworth on anatomical evidence constructs the following table[23].

Group I. Early ancestral forms.

_Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis._

Group II. _Subdivision A. H. primigenius._ _Ex. gr. La Chapelle._ _Subdivision B. H. recens_; with varieties { _H. fossilis. Ex. gr. Galley Hill._ { _H. sapiens._

H. Obermaier[24] argues as follows: _h.o.m.o primigenius_ is neither the representative of an intermediate species between ape and man, nor a lower or distinct type than _h.o.m.o sapiens_, but an older primitive variety (race) of the latter, which survives in exceptional cases down to the present day[25]. Clearly then, according to the rules of zoological cla.s.sification, we must term the two, _h.o.m.o sapiens var.

primigenius_, as compared with _h.o.m.o sapiens var. recens_.

Whatever cla.s.sification or nomenclature may be adopted the dual division in palaeolithic times is now generally recognised. The more primitive type is commonly called Neandertal man, from the famous cranium found in the Neandertal cave in 1857, or Mousterian man, from the culture a.s.sociations. To this group belong the Gibraltar skull[26], and the skeletons from Spy[27], and Krapina, Croatia[28], together with the later discoveries (1908-11) at La Chapelle[29] (Correze), Le Moustier[30], La Fera.s.sie[31] (Dordogne) and many others.

Palaeolithic examples of the modern human type have been found at Brux (Bohemia)[32], Brunn (Moravia)[33] and Galley Hill in Kent[34], but the most complete find was that at Combe Capelle in 1909[35]. The numerous skeletons found at Cro-Magnon[36] and at the Grottes de Grimaldi at Mentone[37] though showing certain skeletal differences may be included in this group, the earliest examples of which are a.s.sociated with Aurignacian culture[38].

From the evidence contributed by these examples the main characteristics of the two groups may be indicated, although, owing to the imperfection of the records, any generalisations must necessarily be tentative and subject to criticism.

The La Chapelle skull recalls many of the primitive features of the "ancestral types." The low receding forehead, the overhanging brow-ridges, forming continuous horizontal bars of bone overshadowing the orbits, the inflated circ.u.mnasal region, the enormous jaws, with ma.s.sive ascending ramus, shallow sigmoid notch, "negative" chin and other "simian" characters seem reminiscent of _Pithecanthropus_ and _h.o.m.o Heidelbergensis_. The cranial capacity however is estimated at over 1600 c.c., thus exceeding that of the average modern European, and this development, even though a.s.sociated, as M. Boule has pointed out, with a comparatively lowly brain, is of striking significance. The low stature, probably about 1600 mm. (under 5-1/2 feet) makes the size of the skull and cranial capacity all the more remarkable. "A survey of the characters of Neanderthal man--as manifested by his skeleton, brain cast, and teeth--have convinced anthropologists of two things: first, that we are dealing with a form of man totally different from any form now living; and secondly, that the kind of difference far exceeds that which separates the most divergent of modern human races[39]."

The earliest complete and authentic example of "Aurignacian man" was the skeleton discovered near Combe Capelle (Dordogne) in 1909[40]. The stature is low, not exceeding that of the Neandertal type, but the limb bones are slighter and the build is altogether lighter and more slender.

The greatest contrast lies in the skull. The forehead is vertical instead of receding, and the strongly projecting brow-ridges are diminished, the jaw is less ma.s.sive and less simian with regard to all the features mentioned above. Especially is this difference noticeable in the projection of the chin, which now for the first time shows the modern human outline. In short there are no salient features which cannot be matched among the living races of the present day.

On the cultural side no less than on the physical, the thousands of years which the lowest estimate attributes to the Early Stone Age were marked by slow but continuous changes.

The Reutelian (at the junction of the Pliocene and Pleistocene), Mafflian and Mesvinian industries, recognised by M. Rutot in Belgium, belong to the doubtful Eolithic Period, not yet generally accepted[41].

The lowest palaeolithic deposit is the Strepyan, so called from Strepy, near Charleroi, typically represented at St Acheul, Amiens, and recognised also in the Thames Valley[42]. The tools exhibit deliberate flaking, and mark the transition between eolithic and palaeolithic work. The a.s.sociated fauna includes two species of elephant, _E. meridionalis_ and _E. antiquus_, two species of rhinoceros, _R. Etruscus_ and _R. Merckii_, and the hippopotamus. It is possible that the Mauer jaw and the Piltdown skull belong to this stage.

The Ch.e.l.lean industry[43], with the typical coa.r.s.ely flaked almond-shaped implements, occurs abundantly in the South of England and in France, less commonly in Belgium, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia, while examples have been recognised in Palestine, Egypt, Somaliland, Cape Colony, Madras and other localities, though outside Europe the date is not always ascertainable and the form is not an absolute criterion[44].

Acheulean types succeed apparently in direct descent but the implements are altogether lighter, sharper, more efficient, and are characterised by finer workmanship and carefully retouched edges. A small finely finished lanceolate implement is typical of the sub-industry or local development at La Micoque (Dordogne).