122 R. HUYSHE WALKEY, ESQ., ON 



given as proofs of bow vastly higher was the artistic tahjiit 

 of Palaeolithic man than is that of his modern descendants. 

 What, then, is the inference to be drawn from this ? The 

 study of history and anthropology shows us that art is the 

 output of high intellectuality, and that an artistic nation is 

 invariably more intellectual than is an inartistic one. If 

 only these drawings remained, we couLl oppose evolution on 

 the ground that primitive man was more artistic and there- 

 lore further removed from a simian type than is any known 

 uncivihsed nation. If the Palseolithic skull of Duruthy Cave 

 is, as French archeeologists claim, of the same type as those 

 of Cro-Magnon, it is exactly that which we should expect to 

 find belonging to a race of such high artistic feeling. 



It has been held that Palaeolithic man was more densely 

 covered with hair than are the men of the present day ; but 

 this view is really based on the most shadowy grounds. To 

 argue from a few incised lines on a rough sketch of a figure 

 that that figure was hairy, when at the present time we know 

 that it is not so ; and when the lines themselves may in 

 almost all, if not all cases, have a more natural interpretation 

 as being rough attempts at shading, is both absurd and 

 unscientific. Besides, too, the fact that Palaeolithic man 

 wore gloves similar to those of the Esquimaux (and from 

 this we may pretty safely infer that he wore other clothes, 

 equally similar) tends to show that he was little better 

 protected by nature than are his descendants. 



Thus, so far as we at present know, the theory of 

 special creation is that which archasology tends to confirm. 

 There is an answer which is sometimes brought forward 

 to meet this part of the question ; ^nz., that the space of 

 time between now and Palaeolithic times is so short that no 

 difference can therein be expected to have taken place in 

 the human structure. But this Avould throw back the time 

 of man's evolution to so vast a date, and to a time when we 

 have every reason to suppose the world was utterly unfit 

 for human occupation, that it is practically untenable. Also 

 if, as I have endeavoured to show is the case, Palaeolithic 

 man was of a high type — and from the absolute similarity of 

 his implements we are justified in supposing this to have 

 been the case throughout the whole of his distribution — we 

 may argue that, as since then he has deteriorated so much 

 as to be now represented by the modern Australians, Bush- 

 men, and Terra del Fuegians, or even more intimately by 

 the Esquimaux, the time which has been sufficient for so con- 



