[1 64 EVOLUTION AND SOCIAL PROGRESS 



by the Neanderthal specimen, Windle contributes 

 the last word to this subject when he writes : u 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." 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: 

 "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." 16 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 150700. || 9900. 

 Modern Parisian 77 i559cc. || 41 13370:. || 222 cc. 11 



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. 



* See Windle's chapter "The Form of the Human Skull," in 

 "A Century of Scientific Thought." 



"Archiv fur Anthropologie, XXVIII, p. 358. 

 " Wmdle, p. tit., p. 128. 



