100 
Palceolithic Man. 
prefer to regard them as the products of the garden roller. 
The reader is free to form his own conclusions/ 
The author’s review of the Piltdown remains is excellent ; 
he does not incline to the idea put forward by some writers 
(who have not even seen the specimens) that the skull is 
human and the jaw that of a chimpanzee. 
Two human skeletons which have figured prominently in 
archaeological literature in recent years are somewhat summar- 
ily dealt with : — ‘ The Galley Hill skeleton is one of the 
trump cards in the hands of those who hold that the modern 
type of man developed at an early stage of the history of 
humanity in Europe ; the doubf that must always cling to it 
is therefore unfortunate. Its condition of fossilisation was 
less advanced than that of other bones deposited in the same 
stratum ; and Duckworth has shewn reason for believing that 
it is merely an Anglo-Saxon interment . The skeleton belonged 
to a man entirely modern in type and rather short in stature.. 
Ipswich. The skeleton found at the end of 1911, embedded in 
the Red Crag at Ipswich, created much sensation at the time, 
but the discoverer has himself withdrawn it from the field of 
science, acknowledging the faultiness of the original observa- 
tions. Nothing need further be said of it.’ 
Respecting a recent discovery of alleged Palaeolithic pottery 
with human remains in a dry valley at Ipswich, the author 
states ‘ These people, so far as the fragmentary conditions of 
their remains permitted a judgment to be formed, were of 
modern type, and therefore not Mousterian ; and of low stature, 
therefore not Aurignacian. Marks on some of them explained 
as tooth-marks, once more revived the question of cannibalism ; 
but man does not gnaw bones, neither will his teeth make such 
marks. The fauna was entirely holocene in character, except- 
ing one bone, doubtfully identified as part of the tibia of a 
mammoth ; and the flora, of which remains were to be found 
in the peat -bed, was also exclusively of recent species, and 
indicated a modern climate, such as did not prevail during the 
Mousterian stage. The inference is inevitable that there is. 
a faulty observation somewhere. It may be that the potsherds 
have in some way worked through the soft peat to the place 
where they were found. Or it may be that in spite of their 
Mousterian and Aurignacian facies, the flints are Neolithic. 
A button of coprolite, with a scratched ornament upon it — such 
as is not found in Mousterian strata — agrees with this ; and 
the cautious judgment of the expert geologist whose opinion 
was invited is fully justified. He says “ If one were to ask 
oneself the question as to whether one would be surprised if 
it were proved on other grounds that the floors were of Neolithic 
date, one must frankly confess the answer would be No.’’ 
On the question of the age of Cissbury, etc., we learn ‘ In 
Naturalist 
