that he was the microcephalic creature here represented 

 is certainly not true. In cranial capacity the Mousterian 

 man was far superior to the Australian, " and even, it 

 would appear, to the European, whose average capacity 

 is not above 1550 cc." So says Professor Sbllas, whose 

 opinion on the matter is final, and he adds, " Cranial 

 capacity is a measure of the volume .of the brain, and 

 thus it is clear that the Mousterians were men with big 

 brains." We might have argued that they were not 

 destitute of brains from their skill in working flint imple- 

 ments even if we had never found their skulls. Further, 

 we know this about them, from the existence of " accom- 

 panying gifts " in their interments, that they believed 

 in a future existence and made provision for the needs of 

 their dead in it in like manner to primitive men in all 

 parts of the world. The frontispiece represents another 

 kind of primitive man of a reasonable kind, but we must 

 protest against such pictures as that of Homo Mousteri- 

 cnsis, which, with all allowance for artistic licence, do not 

 give any fair idea of what the man of that time looked 

 like. For another thing, it is a pure assumption to repre- 

 sent him with a hair-clad body. The art of primitive man 

 is pretty well known. He seldom represented himself, 

 but when he did he gave no indication of a hairy coat, as 

 he did, for example, in his sketch of the mammoth. We 

 may hope to see the inaccuracies which have here been 

 pointed out corrected in later editions of this book. 



B.C.A.W. 



