loo THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN 
the skull is 184 mm., width 132, the width index being 
71. He had a brain capacity of 1350 c.c. — about the 
same as the Cheddar man — and was buried in the con- 
tracted posture with his grave protected by blocks of 
chalk. The other skeleton^ was that of a woman with a 
very large head (length "195 mm., width 144 mm., the 
width index being 74). The brain capacity was estimated 
by Professor Rolleston to be 1732 c.c. — a great amount, 
particularly in a short woman with a stature of only 
5 feet. If Mr Reginald Smith is right in regarding the 
Cissbury people as Aurignacians — the exploration of 
Grimes Graves now undertaken by the Prehistoric 
Society of East Anglia will settle the matter — then we 
have to enlarge our conception of the activities and 
amenities of that time.^ We know that on the Continent 
art reached a higher standard in the later phases of the 
Palaeolithic period. Cissbury was evidently the home of 
a community of miners. Even at this early date there 
was a tendency towards the specialisation of human 
industries — a tendency which has become so pronounced 
in modern civilisation. 
To bring this chapter to a close, we shall return to the 
very centre of London, to the north bank of the Thames 
between Trafalgar Square and Westminster. The land 
here holds the same relationship to the Thames as the 
Hailing terrace — at which we started — bears to the 
Medway. In 1892, foundations were excavated in this 
area for a new Admiralty building, exposing a section 
of the north bank, or low terrace of the Thames, which 
was carefully studied and recorded by Mr Lewis Abbot.^ 
Eleven feet below high-tide level was found an old land 
surface, bearing in an " Arctic bed " remains of plants 
which are natives of a cold climate. That bed marks a 
closing phase of the glacial period, evidently corresponding 
to the date of the formation of the lowest terraces of the 
1 See RoWtston, /ct/rn. Atithrop. Instif., 1876, vol. vi. p. 20. 
2 A human skull has been found. It is of the same type as the Cissbury 
specimens. 
^ See Proc. Geol. Assoc, 1892, vol. xii. p. 346. 
