596 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 
and several of these teeth are skillfully engraved with figures of animals, one 
bearing the engraved figure of an embroidered glove. ‘This necklace, no doubt 
just such a trophy of the chase as would now be worn by a red Indian hunter, 
though more elaborate, must have belonged to the owner of the skull, who would 
appear to have perished by a fall of rock, or to have had his body covered after 
death with stones. In the deposit near and under these remains were flint flakes. 
Above the skull were several feet of refuse, stones, and bones of the horse, rein- 
deer, etc., and ‘‘ paleolithic” flint implements, and above all were placed several 
skulls and skeletons with ‘‘ beautifully chipped” flint implements. After the 
burial of these the cave seems to have been finally closed with large stones. The 
French explorers of this cave refer the lower and upper skulls to the same race; 
but Dawkins, in consistency with his theory, has to consider the upper remains 
as ‘‘ Neolithic,” though there is no conceivable reason why a man who possessed 
a necklace of beautifully carved teeth should not have belonged to a tribe which 
used well-made stone implements, or why the weapons buried with the dead 
should have been no better than the chips and flakes left by the same people im 
their rubbish-heaps. = 
The reasoning by which the author supports this distinction is throughout 
scarcely worthy of his reputation, and implies great carelessness as to modern 
analogies. The same remark may be made as to his identification of the cave 
men with the Esquimaux. What he says on this head would serve quite as well 
to identify them with other hunting and fishing people; with the Haidas of the 
Queen Charlotte Islands, for example, the Micmacs of Nova Scotia, or even the 
Fuegians. He exposes, however, the folly of the minute distinctions made by 
some French archeologists as to the ages of the remains in different caves, and 
which, as Lyell and others have insisted, prove no more than slight differences of 
wealth and culture among contemporary or immediately successive tribes. 
Another point on which he well insists, and which he has admirably illus- 
trated, is the marked distinction between the old paleocosmic men of the gravels 
and caves and the smaller race with somewhat differently formed skulls which 
succeeded them, after the great subsidence which terminated the Second Conti- 
nental period and inaugurated the Modern epoch. ‘The latter race he identifies 
with the Basques and ancient Iberians, a non-Aryan or Turanian people who once 
possessed nearly the whole of Europe, and included the rude Ugrians and Laps 
of the north, the civilized Etruscans of the south, and the Iberians of the west, 
with allied tribes occupying the British Islands. This race, scattered and over- 
thrown before the dawn of authentic history in Europe by the Celts and other 
intrusive peoples, was unquestionably that which succeeded the now extinct 
paleocosmic race and constituted the men of the so-called ‘‘ Neolithic period,” 
which thus connects itself with the modern history of Europe, from which it is 
not separated by any physical catastrophe like that which divides the older men of 
the mammoth age and the widely spread continents of the post-glacial period from 
our modern days. ‘This identification of the Neolithic men with the Iberians, 
