Yet—mirabile dictu—while the non-cannibal Palæolithic man, who must have certainly antedated cannibal Neolithic man by hundreds of thousands of years,[1683] is shown to be a remarkable artist, Neolithic man is made out to be almost an abject savage, his lake dwellings notwithstanding.[1684] For see what a learned Geologist, Mr. Charles Gould, tells the reader in his Mythical Monsters:
Palæolithic men were unacquainted with pottery and the art of weaving, and apparently had no domesticated animals or system of cultivation; but the Neolithic lake-dwellers of Switzerland had looms, pottery, cereals, sheep, horses, etc. Implements of horn, bone, and wood were in common use among both races, but those of the older are frequently distinguished by their being sculptured with great [pg 756]ability, or ornamented with life-like engravings of the various animals living at the period; whereas there appears to have been a marked absence of any similar artistic ability[1685] on the part of Neolithic man.[1686]
Let us give the reasons for this.
(1) The oldest fossil man, the primitive cave-men of the old Palæolithic period, and of the Pre-Glacial period (of whatever length, and however far back), is always the same genus man, and there are no fossil remains proving for him
What the Hipparion and Anchitherium have proved for the genus horse—that is, gradual progressive specialization from a simple ancestral type to more complex existing forms.[1687]
(2) As to the so-called Palæolithic hatchets:
When placed side by side with the rudest forms of stone hatchets actually used by the Australian and other savages, it is difficult to detect any difference.[1688]
This goes to prove that there have been savages at all times; and the inference would be that there might have been civilized people in those days as well, cultured nations contemporary with those rude savages. We see such a thing in Egypt 7,000 years ago.
(3) An obstacle which is the direct consequence of the two preceding: Man, if no older than the Palæolithic period, could not possibly have had the actual time necessary for his transformation from the “missing link” into what he is known to have been even during that remote geological time, i.e., even a finer specimen of manhood than many of the now existing races.
The above lends itself naturally to the following syllogism: (1) The primitive man (known to Science) was, in some respects, even a finer man of his genus than he is now. (2) The earliest monkey known, the lemur, was less anthropoid than the modern pithecoid species. (3) [pg 757] Conclusion: Even though a missing link were found, the balance of evidence would remain more in favour of the ape being a degenerated man, made dumb by some fortuitous circumstances,[1689] than in favour of the descent of man from a pithecoid ancestor. The theory cuts both ways.