# Prehistoric Britain/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II
EVIDENTIAL MATERIALS—EARLY DISCOVERIES—Lyell's "ANTIQUITY OF MAN"
From the remarks made in the previous chapter it will be seen that the evolution of man has passed through two chronological stages. The first coincided with the time during which the morphological changes involved in the permanent assumption of the erect attitude were being effected. The second ranges contemporaneously with the ​development of the higher mental faculties, consequent on the stimulation induced by the manipulative functions of the hand, as exemplified in the manufacture of tools and their application to the exigencies of human life. The changes produced in the human body during the first stage, being readily accomplished under the ordinary laws of organic morphology, were completed in a comparatively short time. Those of the latter, being almost co-extensive with the life-history of men on the globe, have occupied a much longer time. To convert the small increments of knowledge, gathered from experience of the laws of nature, and the working of a variety of novel mechanical contrivances, into brain substance, is a process of slow growth. Nor can any limitation be put on its duration, as it runs on parallel lines with human civilization, and is as applicable to the modern as to the early races of mankind. As evidence of the progressiveness of brain development, which went on from generation to generation during this long stage in the history of humanity, we have a series of fossil skulls showing, in chronological sequence, a gradual abandonment of simian characters, and a steady approachment to the cranial characters of the civilized races of to-day.
Among the structural changes effected in the course of this brain development was a retrocession or contraction of the facial bones, especially the jawbones, towards the central axis of the spinal column, and a backward ​shifting of the cerebrum over the cerebellum. As the gradual filling up of the cranial cavity progressed necessarily pari passu with these modifications, we have, in the facial angle of Camper, a rough mechanical means of estimating the advance of mental development during the period of man's existence as a human being, i.e. since he attained the erect attitude.
Among the minor results of this retrocession of the facial bones was a gradual contraction of the alveolar borders of the jaws, thus crowding the teeth into a smaller space. The consequence was that the third molar teeth, which were the largest, or at least the same size as their neighbours, in the jaws of the Palæolithic races, became gradually smaller, until in civilized races they have dwindled into almost vestigial organs.
Another distinction between the earlier fossil skeletons and those of modern civilized races is that the latter have well-formed chins, forming a striking contrast to the simian-like mandibles of the former, as shown in Fig. 1. This is the most remarkable feature of the recently discovered Piltdown mandible in Sussex (see Fig. 9). Whatever may be the precise cause of this peculiarity, there can be no doubt that the gradual formation of the human chin has a remarkable parallelism with the progress of man's intellectuality, ever since he diverged from the common stem line from which he and the anthropoid apes have descended.
There are thus two distinct lines on which ​investigations into the past history of mankind may be profitably conducted, both of which start from the attainment of the erect attitude—one dealing with the fossil remains of past races, and the other with their handicraft
Fig. 1.—Profile of Lower Jaws. (After Gaudry.)
1. Chin of a modern Frenchman
2. That of a young man from Grotte des Enfants Mentone—Race de Grimaldi.
3. Lower jaw of a fossil monkey (Dryopithecus).
products. The evidential materials to be gathered from these different sources consist, in the one case of some fragments of a few skeletons of former races, which, by some fortuitous circumstances, have to this day resisted the disintegrating forces of nature; ​and, in the other, of a number of specimens of man's handicraft works, which, being largely made of such endurable substance as flint, are more abundantly met with. The successive modifications which these respective materials have undergone during a long series of ages, though different in kind, are found to bear a decided ratio to the progress of human intelligence. Thus, taking the human skull at the starting-point of humanity as comparable to that of one of the higher apes, we know, as a matter of fact, that during the onward march of time it has undergone some striking changes, both in form and capacity, before reaching the normal type of modern civilized races—changes which can be largely classified in chronological sequence. Similarly, the artificial products of man's hands show a steady improvement in type, technique and efficiency, commensurate with his progressive knowledge of the laws of nature and his ability in applying them to mechanical and utilitarian purposes. Indeed, the trail of humanity along its entire course is strewn with the discarded weapons and tools which, from time to time, had to give way to others of greater efficiency. Such obsolete objects are now only collected as curiosities to be preserved in archaeological museums.
From this vast field of anthropological and archæological materials we are expected to convey to our readers some general idea of their scientific value, in illustrating the progressive advances of the earliest British ​inhabitants from savagedom to the goal of human civilization. It must also be borne in mind that in this and the following chapter, which deals with Palæolithic remains, no distinction can be drawn between relics found in Britain and the adjacent lands of Europe, as these land-areas were then united into one great continent. Many of the connecting links are probably strewn on the beds of the English Channel and the North Sea, or on former inhabited sites and submerged forests.
Early Discoveries.—Prior to the publication of Sir Charles Lyell's work on The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, isolated discoveries were recorded in different parts of Europe, disclosing anthropological facts which, in the opinion of a few savants, could only be accounted for by assigning to man a higher antiquity than was then the current opinion in scientific circles. These discoveries consisted of the fossil remains of man associated with flint implements and the bones of extinct animals in undisturbed deposits of the Quaternary period. But the reception given to this class of evidence was most discouraging, as may be judged from the following notes on a few of the earlier records.
About 1690 a flint implement of excellent workmanship of the coup-de-poing type (Fig. 2), was found along with the tooth of a mammoth in a gravel bed at Gray's Inn Lane, London, and presented to the British Museum. Though described in the Sloane Catalogue and exposed to public view ever since, it lay there, ​as an object of no significance, until 1859, when Sir A. W. Franks recognized its close similarity to the flint implements discovered by M. Boucher de Perthes in the gravels of the Somme valley. A similar fate befell a later discovery (1797) of flint implements, associated with the bones of extinct animals, at Hoxne in Suffolk. Fig. 2.—Flint implement (coup-de-poing) found in Gray's Inn Lane (1/2).
​About the beginning of the second quarter of last century the Rev. J. MacEnery found flint implements, associated with bones and teeth of extinct animals, below a thick continuous sheet of stalagmite in Kent's Cavern. But the legitimate inference from these facts, viz. that man was contemporary with these animals and lived before the stalagmite was deposited, had found no acceptance, even among the scientists of the day. Further discoveries, confirming the truth of MacEnery's statements, were made in Kent's Cavern (1840) and described at a meeting of the British Association; but they were also discredited. It was not till 1865 that a majority of the Council became sufficiently convinced of the importance of the archæological remains found in Kent's Cavern to appoint a committee, with a money grant, for its complete excavation on scientific principles.
In 1829 Dr. Schmerling commenced his memorable researches in the caverns of the province of Liége. The evidence of man's antiquity revealed by his discoveries consisted of flint implements and remains of human skeletons, associated with bones of the hyæna, cave-bear, cave-lion, rhinoceros, mammoth and reindeer. An illustrated account of his discoveries was published in 1833–4, in which the author, in the most unequivocal language, contended for the contemporaneity of man with the extinct animals; but owing chiefly to the influence of the celebrated naturalist, Cuvier, his opinions did not ​receive the attention they merited. Sir Charles Lyell paid a visit to Dr. Schmerling in 1833, and expressed some incredulity respecting the alleged antiquity of the fossil bones, but afterwards he changed his opinion and made an apology for his former scepticism. The apology itself is of little consequence, but the statements therein made form a most interesting account of the difficulties under which Dr. Schmerling carried on his researches, and supply evidence of the enthusiasm and persistence with which he advocated what he believed to be truth in face of an unbelieving world.
The discovery by M. Boucher de Perthes of rude flint implements, associated with bones of the mammoth and other extinct animals, in the ancient river gravels of the valley of the Somme, at various heights above the present highest flood-marks of the river, equally failed to attract public attention. An account of his discoveries, under the title Antiquités celtiques et antédiluviennes was published in 1847, but for upwards of ten years it remained a dead letter. At last, through the intervention of a few English savants, his novel antiquities were rescued from obscurity. The first English convert to M. de Perthes' opinions was Dr. Hugh Falconer, F.R.S., who, writing in November 1858, thus expressed himself on the subject:
"After devoting the greater part of a day to his vast collection, I am perfectly satisfied ​that there is a great deal of fair presumptive evidence in favour of many of his speculations regarding the remote antiquity of these industrial objects and their association with animals now extinct." (Essays, etc., by Lady Prestwich, 1901, p. 83.) Fig. 3.—Outline of the Moulin-Quignon Jaw (1/2). (After Quatrefages.)
"On the 23rd of March, 1863, some four years after a few of the leading archæologists of France and England had come to recognize the truth of Dr. Falconer's opinion, a workman engaged in digging gravel near a windmill called Moulin-Quignon, in the suburbs of Abbevilie, came to inform M. Boucher de Perthes that a small portion of a bone was to be seen projecting from the face of a cutting then in progress. He and a friend (M. Dimpre) went on at once to the spot and witnessed the extraction of the bone, which proved to be a human mandible (Fig. 3). It was embedded in a dark sandy ferruginous seam, almost in ​contact with the underlying chalk; four and a half metres from the surface, and thirty metres above the level of the Somme. Associated with this bone were some flint implements of the usual types, which were then unsuspiciously accepted as genuine relics. The news of this discovery caused great excitement among leading anthropologists on both sides of the Channel, and many of them at once visited the locality.
"Meanwhile doubts as to the authenticity of the jaw had been freely expressed by some of the English visitors, and hence a controversy arose, which soon reached such a climax that the disputants arranged to hold an international Congress of representative men to inquire into the whole circumstances. Accordingly, this Congress was opened in Paris on the 9th of May, 1863. France was represented by MM. Lartet, Delisse, De Quatrefages, Bourgeois, Bateux, Gaudry, Desnoyers, and Milne-Edwards; and England by MM. Falconer, Prestwich, Carpenter and Busk—Evans had also been nominated, but was unable to attend. M. Milne-Edwards presided, and in the name of his French colleagues presented a report affirming the authenticity of the jaw; but after many meetings, much discussion, and a visit to Abbeville, the English representatives remained unconvinced, and so the Congress dispersed, leaving the jaw as much as ever a bone of contention." (From Archæology and False Antiquities, p. 32.) ​Subsequently it became mooted that the jaw, along with other human bones, had been found in a prehistoric grave in the neighbourhood, and secretly deposited in the gravel-pit by a workman. There was, however, this difference between the jaw and the other bones, that the former was covered with the dark mud of the gravel-pit, while the latter had the appearance of having been long in contact with a reddish sandy matrix. But in sawing through a portion of the jaw its interior was found to contain a reddish material totally different from that on its external surface.
Another incident which raised some suspicion about the authenticity of the jaw was, that M. Boucher de Perthes had offered a reward of 200 francs to the first workman who would discover a human bone in situ. Eight days later, according to G. de Mortillet, he was informed of the discovery of the jaw at Moulin-Quignon.
That the Moulin-Quignon mandible was a fraud is the verdict which finds general acceptance among anthropologists of the present day. But at the time M. de Perthes unfortunately looked on the matter as a question of personal veracity. It was taken out in his presence, and, therefore, must be authentic. Lady Prestwich (loc. cit., p. 91) tells us that it was a bitter disappointment to him that his English friends, "in acknowledging the fact of the human jaw having been truly found as described, yet refused ​to admit that it belonged to a remote antiquity."
​One of the most famous discoveries of the pre-Lyellian period was the human skeleton found in the cave of Feldhofen, situated at the entrance to a small ravine called Neanderthal, on the right bank of the river Düssel. The opening to the cave was from a small terrace on a steep limestone cliff, about 60 feet above the bed of the river, and 110 feet below the surface of the plateau above. The cave has long ago been quarried away, but its dimensions are reported to have been 16 feet in length, 11 feet in breadth, and 8 feet in height. On the uneven floor of the cave lay a mass of consolidated mud, about five feet in depth, sparingly mixed with rounded fragments of chert, but without stalagmitic deposits. It was while this mud was being removed that the skeleton was encountered. At first no idea was entertained by the workmen of the bones being human, and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they were recognized as such by Dr. Fuhlrott. By this time many of the bones were dispersed. The skull-cap (Fig. 4), and a few other bones remained, and were at once placed in security. No other animal remains, with the exception of a bear's tooth, were found in the cave. Consequently there are no collateral circumstances, neither archæological, geological nor stratigraphical, which can help to assign a date to the Neanderthal skeleton, so that its antiquity has been determined solely from the osteological characters of the skull-cap. These, however, were found ​to be so remarkable in character that, when first exhibited at a scientific meeting at Bonn, doubts were expressed by several naturalists as to whether they were really human. The cranium was of great size and thickness, and had a long elliptical form, a low, retreating forehead, excessive development of the frontal sinuses, and a great projection of the occipital region. The sutures were nearly obliterated, and the line of the frontal suture was marked by a slight ridge. The principal dimensions of the skull were as follows:
| | mm. | |
| Antero-posterior diameter................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ | 200 | |
| Transversedo................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ | 144 | |
| Frontal (min.)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ | 106 | |
| Do. (max.)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ | 122 | |
| Horizontal circumference................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ | 590 | (571?) |
| Cephalic index................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ | 72 | |
Fig. 4.—Side view of the Neanderthal skull-cap (1/3). (After Huxley.)
​With regard to this skull Professor Huxley, writing in 1863, says:
"There can be no doubt that, as Professor Schaaffhausen and Mr. Busk have stated, the skull is the most brutal of all known human skulls, resembling those of the apes not only in the prodigious development of the superciliary prominences and the forward extension of the orbits, but still more in the depressed form of the brain-case, in the straightness of the squamosal suture, and in the complete retreat of the occiput forward and upward, from the superior occipital ridges."
The above rapid sketch of a few of the more outstanding discoveries, bearing on the antiquity of man, shows that the science of anthropology had as yet only attained a footing in the minds of a few thoughtful men, who had been able to divest themselves of hereditary prejudices. Professor Huxley, writing in 1894, in his preface to the re-publication of Man's Place in Nature, thus writes:
"Among the many problems which came under my consideration, the position of the human species in zoological classification was one of the most serious. Indeed, at that time, (circa 1857) it was a burning question in the sense that those who touched it were almost certain to burn their fingers severely. It was not so very long since my kind friend Sir William Lawrence, one of the ablest men whom I have known, had been well-nigh ostracized ​for his book On Man, which now might be read in a Sunday-school without surprising anybody; it was only a few years since the electors to the chair of Natural History in a famous northern University had refused to invite a very distinguished man to occupy it because he advocated the doctrine of the diversity of species of mankind, or what was called 'polygeny.' Even among those who considered man from the point of view not of vulgar prejudice, but of science, opinions lay poles asunder. Linnæus had taken one view, Cuvier another; and, among my senior contemporaries, men like Lyell, regarded by many as revolutionaries of the deepest dye, were strongly opposed to anything which tended to break down the barrier between man and the rest of the animal world."
This was the state of matters when the Origin of Species appeared, and produced a profound sensation among all thinking people. In this work Darwin traced the origin of man through a series of intermediate forms back to protoplasm, without the intervention of repeated cataclysms and creative dramas, as was generally held by the earlier geologists. "As all the living forms of life," he writes, "are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession of generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world" (loc. cit., p. 428).
​Another work, which called forth almost as much hostile criticism as the Origin of Species, was Huxley's Mans Place in Nature, published in 1863. In this little volume the author finally shattered the hypothesis which assigned man's origin and civilization to a sui generis code outside the ordinary laws of the organic world.
It was not, however, till after the publication of Lyell's Antiquity of Man (1863) that anthropology took its place among the great departments of scientific knowledge.
In my recent lectures on Palæolithic Man in Europe, 1912 (p. 101), I thus summed up the immediate results which followed the publication of Lyell's book:
"Henceforth a new impetus was given to the study of the science of anthropology by the conviction that the meanest traces of man's early career were actually more important materials for a history of humanity than all the treasures that had been collected from the ruins of the greatest empires of the historic world. The wide morphological gap between man and the other animals still living suggested a correspondingly long period for man's development, in the course of which it was expected that some evidence of the stages through which he had passed might have become stereotyped in the geological records. Where to find and how to interpret such materials were now the chief problems at issue; and to their solution the ​savants of all countries braced themselves with an energy that augured final success. Societies were founded in London, Paris and other centres of intellectuality, for the express purpose of following up the new-found trail of humanity; and to popularize and disseminate their doctrines, numerous periodicals and special works were published. One periodical may be specially mentioned, viz. Les Matériaux pour l'histoire primitive et naturelle de l'Homme—which, since it was started by G. de Mortillet, had been the means of giving wide publicity to the new doctrines. In the year 1865, at a special meeting of the Italian Society of Natural Science held at Spezzia, was founded the 'Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie préhistoriques,' the first meeting of which was held in the following year at Neuchâtel. Subsequent meetings have been held at Paris (1867), London, (Norwich) (1868), Copenhagen (1869), Bologna (1871), Brussels (1872), Stockholm (1874), Buda-Pesth (1876), Lisbon (1880), Paris (1889), Moscow (1892), Paris (1900), Monaco (1906), and Geneva (1912). The published proceedings of these Congresses contain the most complete records of the progress of the science, especially as regards Europe. After the cloud of scepticism which enveloped its early and evolutionary stages had been swept aside, anthropology found a footing at the British Association for the Advancement of Science, at first as a sectional department, but since 1884 it ​became expedient to devote a special section for the exclusive consideration of its doctrines. At the same time it cannot be denied, that the negative side of the evolution problem, which had so long found a refuge among religious bodies under the false assumption that their views had the imprimatur of the Biblical narrative of creation, had still its advocates, for it seems that no amount of evidence can eradicate the rooted objections of some persons to the doctrine of evolution."
The revolution thus effected in current thought with regard to the origin of man, though mainly due to the publication of the works of the eminent writers above mentioned, derived a contributory element from the science of geology. Early in last century geologists were rather inclined to the opinion that the world had passed through a series of destructive cataclysms, each of which had been succeeded by an entirely new flora and fauna. These successive world-revolutions were supposed to be due to the direct interposition of an all-ruling Providence; and hence, for a time, these geological speculations rather strengthened the so-called orthodox opinion, that the present order of things was the final stage of the imaginary dramas of special creations, in which the creation of Man stood forth as the last and crowning achievement. But a fuller acquaintance with fossil remains soon rendered the theory of cataclysms untenable. In other words, the ​organic continuity of life throughout the successive geological periods was proved and accepted.
The influence of this drastic clearance of antiquated machinery in geology soon extended to the collateral sciences, and the first to benefit from the improved methods was archæology.
The discoveries of Kjøkkenmøddings (Kitchen-middens) in Denmark and lake-dwellings in Switzerland, with the vast and varied wealths of prehistoric materials which they brought to light, began now, also, to attract universal attention. Owing to the more rigid and scientific methods adopted in collateral researches, archæology proper, independent of its new-born palæolithic phase, had acquired a wider significance than formerly. The common borderland between geology and anthropology was being better understood, especially as regards the glacial period. Above all, the antiquarian dilettantism of earlier days and the unbending attitude of so-called orthodoxy began to have less influence on the philosophic mind, so that the new doctrine fell on a somewhat congenial and receptive soil in which it soon took permanent root.