ANTHROPOLOGY 39 



races were much nearer to modern Caucasians than are numerous 

 peoples Hving to-day. It is, however, difficult to be sure of 

 their exact affinities. The apparent cultural indications are 

 sometimes almost striking ; but they receive little or no 

 support from the osteological evidence, and if we were desti- 

 tute of the latter, they would undoubtedly be highly mis- 

 leading. In particular, the resemblance of the Magdalenian 

 culture — which flourished, many of us believe, at the height 

 of the last glacial period — to the culture of the modern 

 Eskimos has often been the subject of comment. It is, 

 however, quite certain that most of the Magdalenian races 

 were entirely unlike the Eskimos. It has long been claimed, 

 however, that one late Pleistocene skull, the well-known 

 Chancelade skull, has a definite resemblance to the Eskimo 

 type. This important question is discussed, among others, by 

 W. E. Le Gros Clark in an article entitled " On a Series of 

 Ancient Eskimo Skulls from Greenland," which appears in 

 the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 50, July 

 to December 1920. The article consists mainly of a report 

 on sixteen adult skulls belonging to St. Thomas's Hospital 

 Medical School. Most of the skulls came from graves near 

 Melville Bay in North Greenland, and the author is confident 

 that they represent an unmixed Eskimo population. The 

 craniological characteristics are set out in detail, but they are, 

 of course, too extensive to quote here. It may be remarked, 

 however, that the author demonstrates that there is a " pre- 

 dominance of frontal over occipital development in the Eskimo 

 skull," and that the lower border of the zygomatic arch shows 

 a curious straightness. At the end of his excellent article 

 Mr. Le Gros Clark deals with the question of the Chancelade 

 skull. He sets out the characteristics of the Chancelade 

 man, of his limb-bones as well as of his cranium ; and I think 

 it will surprise most of his own readers that he comes to the 

 conclusion that the inference to be drawn from the comparison 

 of Eskimo and Chancelade characteristics " must be of a 

 negative nature." He is evidently influenced mainly by the 

 dissimilarity of the limb-bones. But it is difficult to read the 

 careful comparison of the craniological characters, point by 

 point, without feeling that the resemblances are something 

 more than accidental. Among other points of likeness, the 

 Chancelade cranium has the excess of frontal development 

 and the straightness of the zygomatic arch mentioned above. 

 The points of resemblance appear to me to be sufficient to 

 arouse a very serious suspicion of relationship, to express it 

 mildly. The Chancelade skull is, after all, very ancient. It 

 antedates all civilisation by thousands of years. And although 

 the Chancelade race evidently differed from modern Eskimos 



