[1 64 EVOLUTION AND SOCIAL PROGRESS 



by the Neanderthal specimen, Windle contributes 

 the last word to this subject when he writes: &quot;So 

 far as craniological evidence goes, those who de 

 sire to prove the evolution of man s body from 

 that of a lower form have completely failed to 

 make out their case.&quot; 15 Even Macnamara, de 

 fending the descent of man from the brute, was 

 obliged to admit upon the evidence furnished by 

 certain Australian and Tasmanian skulls that: 

 &quot;The average cranial capacity of these selected 

 thirty-six skulls is even less than that of the Nean 

 derthal group, but in shape some of these two 

 groups of crania are closely related.&quot; The 



size of the brain is no accurate index of the in 

 tellectuality of its owner, and skulls with very 

 large brain capacity are found in the earliest 

 strata. Thus comparing a group of skulls of 

 neolithic man with those of modern -Parisians 

 Broca offers the following measurements : 



No. Men No. Women Differences. 



Neolithic man .. 6 1606 cc. || 6 1507 cc. || 99 cc. 

 Modern Parisian 77 i559cc. j| 41 I337CC. |j 223 cc, 1 



If therefore skull capacity were a decisive test 

 of intellectuality, Parisians of the nineteenth cen 

 tury, when these measurements were taken, had 

 been inferior to their predecessors of the stone 

 age. 



35 See Windle s chapter &quot;The Form of the Human Skull,&quot; In 

 &quot;A Century of Scientific Thought.&quot; 



&quot;Archiv fur Anthropologie, XXVIII, p. 358. 

 , 1T Windle, p. cit., p. 128. 



