Primitive Man

by Louis Figuier

We here close our enumeration of the various sources of the archæological records which have served to reconstruct the history of primitive man during that period of the stone age which we have designated under the name of the epoch of the great bear and the mammoth. Before concluding our remarks as to this period, there is one question which we must enter upon, although there is a great deficiency in any positive records by which it might be solved. What was the organic type of man during this epoch? Could we, for instance, determine what amount of intellect man possessed in this earliest and ancient date of his history?

The answer to this question—although a very uncertain answer—has been supposed to have been found in the caves of Engis and Engihoul, of which we have just spoken as having been explored by Schmerling with such valuable results.

The cave of Engis contained the remains of three human beings, among which were two skulls, one that of a youth, the other that of an adult. The latter only was preserved, the former having fallen into dust while it was being extracted from the ground. Two small fragments of a human skull were likewise found at Engihoul; also a great many of the bones of the hands and feet of three individuals.

The Engis skull has been a subject of protracted argument to the palæontologists and anatomists of the present day. Floods of ink have been spilt upon the question; discussions without end have taken place with respect to this piece of bone, in order to fix accurately the amount of intellect possessed by the inhabitants of Belgium during the epoch of the great bear and the mammoth. Up to a certain point the development of the brain may, in fact, be ascertained from the shape of the cranial envelope, and it is well known that a remarkable similarity exists between the cerebral capacity and the intellectual development of all mammiferous animals. But in a question of this kind we must carefully avoid a quicksand on which anthropologists too often make shipwreck; this danger consists in basing a theory on a too limited number of elements, and of generalising conclusions which are perhaps drawn from one special case. Because we find a portion of a skull—not even a whole skull—belonging to a human being contemporary with the great bear, we assume that we can determine the amount of intellect possessed by man during this epoch. But what proof have we that this skull is not that of an idiot, or, on the contrary, the skull of an individual possessing a superior degree of intelligence? What deduction can be logically drawn from the examination of one single skull? None whatever! "Testis unus testis nullus;" and what is said by jurisprudence, which is nothing but good sense in legal matters—science, which is nothing but good sense in learned questions, ought likewise to repeat. If we found ten or twelve skulls, each presenting the same characteristics, we should be justified in thinking that we had before our eyes the human type corresponding to the epoch we are considering; but, we again ask, what arguments could be based on a few fragments of one single skull?

These reservations having been laid down, let us see what some of our great anatomical reasoners have thought about the Engis skull.

The representation which we here give (fig. 37) of the Engis skull was taken from the cast in the Museum of Saint-Germain, and we may perceive from it that the skull is not complete; the entire base of the skull is wanting, and all the bones of the face have disappeared. Consequently it is impossible either to measure the facial angle or to take account of the development of the lower jaw.

Fig. 37.—Portion of a Skull of an Individual belonging to the Epoch of the Great Bear and the Mammoth, found in the Cave of Engis.

We shall not, therefore, surprise any of our readers when we state that the opinions on this subject differ in the most extraordinary degree. In the eyes of Professor Huxley, the English anatomist, this skull offers no indication of degradation; it presents "a good average," and it might just as well be the head of a philosopher as the head of an uncivilised savage. To others—for instance, to Carl Vogt—it indicates an altogether rudimentary degree of intellect.