ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN EUROPE—MACCURDY. Joo 
delberg), Le Moustier, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Combe-Capelle, Le 
Pech de l’Azé, and La Ferrassie; the studies of Breuil, Cartailhac, 
Capitan and others relating to paleolithic mural paintings and en- 
gravings; Commont’s recent explorations at the classic station of 
Saint-Acheul; those of Martin and Giraux at La Quina; the re- 
searches of Szombathy, Hoernes, and Obermaier in Austria-Hun- 
gary, those of R. R. Schmidt and of Wiegers in Germany, and of 
Bachler in Switzerland. Mention has already been made of the 
work done in the caverns of Grimaldi and that begun in northern 
Spain, both under the generous patronage of the Prince of Monaco. 
To enumerate ali the important stations recently discovered, even 
of the paleolithic period alone, would require more space than is at 
my disposal here. There is therefore need of limiting this study 
chronologically as well as geographically. Excepting the bare men- 
tion of quite recent paleolithic discoveries by S. J. Czarnowski? in 
the caverns of Russian Poland, the countries to be included are 
France and Belgium in the center, with Switzerland and parts of 
Germany and Austria-Hungary on the east, and Spain to the south. 
We shall not even cross the channel, as we might well do, for paleo- 
lithically England has much in common with France and Belgium, 
and English students of the period in question have by no means 
been idle of late. 
The time element must also be reduced. The original table of 
relative chronology provided for an age of stone, of bronze, and of 
iron. For the present let us ignore the last two. This leaves the 
stone age, at first applied to the neolithic only, then divided into 
paleolithic and neolithic, and finally into eolithic, paleolithic, and 
neolithic. It is a case of the first being last and the last first in 
more senses than one, for during the past decade there have developed 
what may well be styled an eolithic school as well as a paleolithic 
school. Students of the neolithic on the other hand, while particu- 
larly active, must still await a more favorable moment for correlation, 
for crystallization of data. By common consent, then, we shall elim- 
inate the neolithic from the present discussion, with only a passing 
reference to its place and divisions in the table of relative chronology. 
As for the eolithic school, I endeavored five years ago to sum up 
its work in a paper entitled “The Eolithic Problem.”¢ Since then 
investigations have been carried on almost continuously. Attempts 
were made to explain away the origin of eoliths by the invocation 
of flint mills as factories for their wholesale production, but such 
a. von Koken and R. R. Schmidt have in preparation a large work to be 
ealled *“‘ Die paliolithischen Kulturstiitten Deutschlands.” 
5 Paleolit na zboezu Gory smardzewskiej. Kosmos, vol. 31, Lemberg, 1906. 
¢ American Anthropologist, n. s., vol. 7, 425-479, 1905. 
