46 THE DATING OF EARLY HUMAN REMAINS.
and the position is consequently a difficult one, but until some
positive evidence to the contrary comes to light, I shall rather
incline to the view that Eoanthropus had not yet reached a
fully-developed Stone Age culture, but that his principal weapons
were still those of wood and bone. It seems to me most pro-
bable that the first stone implements would be for the subsidiary
purpose of improving those of wood and bone by artificial shaping.
That the use of stone had reached at least such first beginnings
is suggested by the nature of the cuts upon the worked imple-
ment of bone to which reference has already been made.
THE NEANDERTHAL RACE.
Canstadt. There is some uncertainty about the origin of
this skull. It is alleged to have been found by Duke Eberhard-
Ludwig, of Wurtemberg, in the year 1700 in association with
remains of Elephant, Cave-bear, and Hyaena. It appears to
present the characters of the Neanderthal race in the strong
brow ridges and receding forehead.
Neanderthal. This was a complete skeleton found in 1857
in a cave in the Neanderthal, near Dusseldorf. There is much
probability that the deposit in which it was found is Pleistocene,
but beyond this there is unfortunately no direct evidence to show
its date. At the same time the characters of the skull are so
remarkable that it has been taken as the type of the race to
which it has given its name.6
Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar). This skull was discovered in 1848,
in limestone breccia on the north face of the rock of Gibraltar.7
If the claims of the Canstadt skull to have been found in 1700
be not admitted, then the Gibraltar skull is the earliest discovery
of the Neanderthal race. Again there is no direct evidence of
its date, and the recent investigations carried out by Dr. W X. H.
Duckworth have not thrown any further light upon the matter.8
Naulette. A lower jaw with receding chin and other primitive
characters was found in the cave of la Naulette near Dinant in
1866.9 It occurred deep down in an undisturbed cave deposit
in association with Mammoth and Rhinoceros, and its palaeolithic
age cannot be questioned.
This specimen has great historic interest, as it is among the
6 T. H. Huxley, Man's Place in Nature, 1863.
7 A. Keith, Ancient Types of Man, 1911, p. 131.
8 W L. H. Duckworth, Journ. R. Anthrop. Inst., xli. 1911, p. 350; xlii, 1912, p. 515.
9 R. Munro, Prehistoric Britain (Home University Library), 1913. p. 60.