208 EVOLUTION AND SOCIAL PROGRESS 



sumptions to be found in treatises written with 

 an evolutionary bias in regard to the origin 

 of man. Such an attitude of mind necessarily 

 makes independent judgment and sane originality 

 impossible. Southall s contention that 6,000 or 

 8,000 years suffice for the antiquity of man will 

 hardly be scientifically defended today, although 

 this in itself does not of course prove it to be 

 false. Yet the slightly larger time limit, which 

 in conclusion he here allows, can be well support 

 ed. He says: 



If, as I contend, primeval man commenced his career sir or 

 eight thousand years ago in a civilized condition in the temperate 

 regions of the East, and there are no human traces behind these, 

 the doctrine of evolution, so far as man is concerned, is at once 

 negatived. Even if the man of Solutre, in Eastern France, the 

 contemporary of the mammoth, and who, as I have attempted 

 to show, occupied that station only a few thousand years ago, 

 had apparently domesticated the horse, and in the words of M. 

 Pruner-Bey, est constitue homme dans toute la force du terme&quot; 

 (&quot;was a true man in every sense of the word&quot;) with regard to 

 whom &quot;rien dans son physique n lndique un rapprochement avec 

 les Simiens&quot; (&quot;there is nothing in his physique to indicate a 

 relationship with the ape&quot;). 



Behind this hunter tribe, who have left their remains in the 

 sepultures and refuse heaps of the palaeolithic village, we 

 find nothing. In other words, Palaeolithic Man in Western 

 Europe though not civilized, was an intelligent savage, like 

 our Esquimaux or Red Indians; and neither archaelogy nor 

 geology has detected any earlier human form. Such a man, 

 civilized in Egypt, uncivilized but employing horses, making 

 pottery, executing drawing [reference is here made to a beau 

 tiful reindeer picture by primitive man, serving as a frontis- 



