Reviews—Professor A. Keith—Antiquity of Man. 33 
question have been written by geologists; and he is indeed a bold 
man who would form independent judgments on the materials taken 
at second hand. Now, however, a distinguished human anatomist 
has entered the field, discussing the antiquity of man from his own 
point of view and trusting to such quotations from geological literature 
as suit his purpose. We therefore turn with great interest to 
Professor Arthur Keith’s handsome volume which has just been 
received. 
Professor Keith writes in an attractive style, and though at times 
his matter is somewhat technical his explanatory figures are so 
numerous and clear, placed as they are in frames of standard magni- 
tude, that even the non-anatomical reader will find no difficulty in 
appreciating his points. His story, indeed, is that of an eager student 
ever searching for the meaning of things, and it gives an excellent 
idea of the aims and methods of modern physical anthropology. Our 
only regret is that lack of a geologist’s caution permits him to make 
dogmatic statements about the age of the various remains in terms of 
years, which will doubtless give gratifying satisfaction to an unwary 
public, but will also deceive them in an unfortunate manner. 
Professor Keith begins with Neolithic man, and shows that he differs 
in no respects from the men of Europe at the present day. His 
description of the discovery of his remains in the megalithic monument 
at Coldrum, Kent, is a good example of his picturesque writing. We 
hardly appreciate the comparison of this monument, however, with 
the Sardinian ‘giant’s tomb’, when the relative proportions and 
positions of the stones have to be so much altered to make it plausible 
(cf. figs. 3 and 9). 
Proceeding to Paleolithic man, Professor Keith shows, from the 
well-authenticated cases of Paviland, Engis, and Cro-Magnon, that 
at least the later races were also similar to those of modern civilized 
man. He then soon begins to illustrate the disadvantage of his 
_ position by accepting as valid evidence a series of human remains, 
ot which scarcely any—perhaps none—can be regarded with certainty 
as belonging to the age of the stratum in which they occurred. He 
even continues to believe that the Galley Hill man dates back to the 
Chellean period, and thinks that the Ipswich man may be earlier. 
Thus he assigns a much greater antiquity to modern man than 
a cautious geologist or paleontologist would be disposed todo. In 
fact, he introduces unnecessarily an anomaly into the series of 
undoubted fossil human remains which accord with paleontological 
theory and expectation. 
Of these undoubted fossil remains Professor Keith gives an excellent 
account, enlivened by his own observations, and treats in succession 
of Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, Pithecanthropus, and Koanthropus. 
The discussion of the latter genus, or Piltdown man, is especially 
interesting, and occupies no less than 200 pages. The precise result 
is a little obscure, but Professor Keith now admits that the chimpanzee- 
like lower jaw was correctly restored by the paleontologist, and he 
has considerably reduced his original estimate of the size of the 
brain-case, which he thinks cannot have exceeded 1,400 c.c. We 
can only express the hope that Mr. Charles Dawson will continue his 
DECADE VI.—VOL. III.—NO. I. 3 
