146 THE HUMAN SKULL 



Magdalenian period, which is much nearer our own 

 time than the Mousterian or mammoth era, and 

 no one would, I suppose, now claim that the Engis 

 skull was one of the most ancient group. Some have 

 even thought that it may be neolithic. Again, 

 according to Topinard, Boule, and most other 

 authorities, the remains found at Castelnedolo 

 in Italy are purely an interment, as to the date of 

 which no certain opinion can be formed, whilst 

 Sergi still maintains that they may be the remains 

 of tertiary man. It is obvious that it would be very 

 dangerous to found any theory on data so uncer- 

 tain as these, and I might go further and point to 

 the Cro-Magnon, Cannstatt, Furfooz and Solutre 

 skulls, all of which have at one time been assigned 

 to a considerably earlier period than would now 

 generally be allowed to them. As a matter of fact, 

 out of forty-six skulls which have at one time or 

 another been claimed to be quaternary, Deniker, 

 one of the most recent authorities, ottly admits 

 seven as certainly belonging to that period. 

 Amongst those he does not even reckon the Nean- 

 derthal skull, over which so much ink has been 

 shed. This celebrated skull was the second dealt 

 with by Huxley in the book mentioned a few lines 

 above, and for various reasons some space must be 

 devoted to it, even though it be not now admitted 

 by all to belong to the most ancient times. Some 

 do still assign to it a very early date, Sergi, for 

 example, going so far as to say that " it is definitely 

 accepted that the Neanderthal skull is the most 

 ancient witness to the appearance in Europe of 

 man with well-defined osteological characters." 



