I. 



Plateau Man in Kent. 



rHE further back we push our studies of man, the plainer it becomes 

 that a more comprehensive and at the same time more simple 

 definition of the word " anthropology " must be allowed than is some- 

 times given. Anthropology is not a science of structure and function 

 simply, but of man as an object of natural history, so that man's 

 ontology and phylogeny must be studied like that of any other animal. 

 Unfortunately, we are so prejudiced by preconceived ideas as to his 

 dropping from the clouds in a highly civilised state, that anything 

 claiming more than a very limited amount of development for him 

 is ill-received. Anthropology has thus been but grudgingly allowed 

 to embrace even Palaeolithic man ; and all sorts of theories have been 

 invented, in the face of hard facts, to minimise the number of centuries 

 that have passed since Palaeolithic times. We have still with us the 

 venerable champion of Palaeolithic man — Professor Prestwich, who 

 almost single-handed fought for our progenitors in the valley of the 

 Somme. Since those days, however, this science has made remark- 

 able strides : not only has it made its strongholds impregnable, but it 

 has found it necessary in many parts to extend the dominion of the 

 genus Homo away into the geologic past to a degree that was 

 previously undreamed of. Nor has this been done at the expense of 

 the State or by official observers. Month by month, year by year, a 

 body of workers has been plodding along in various parts, gaining here 

 a little and there a little, to which a new importance has occasionally 

 been given by the more detailed work of the Geological Survey. In our 

 own Thames area we have had workers like General Pitt Rivers,. 

 Messrs. Spurrell, Worthington Smith, Allen Brown, Greenhill, and 

 Shrubsole, to whose names may be added the less known but none 

 the less deserving one of H. Lewis. Then we have had collectors 

 and philosophers in wider fields, such as Sir John Evans, Sir John 

 Lubbock, and several others. During this time it has been conceded 

 that a division might be made in the science, under the head of 

 Prehistoric Anthropology or Prehistoric Archaeology. So long as 

 the study is confined to Neolithic, or even later Palaeolithic man, 

 these terms might be allowed to stand ; for, so long as our discoveries 

 are confined to river-drifts some hundred feet above present water- 

 levels, it is just possible that no great changes in the surface have 



s 



