tinent, but the latter is little more than a hairy relative of the Indian elephant, thoroughly fitted to meet boreal conditions, and the horses in Alaska were probably not unlike the wild Prjevalsky horses of Asia to-day.

The ancient Alaskan deer were probably related to the wapiti, which swarmed over our American plains within the memory of living man, and the fossil remains of caribou and moose do not indicate any great departure from the living forms of those animals.

Sheep still occur abundantly in Alaska, and the musk ox, while no longer found in Alaska, inhabits the no less inhospitable regions of the Barren Grounds of North America and the land masses lying still farther north.

Bison skulls are quite common, and indicate an animal much larger, but probably ancestral to our living buffalo. The history of the American bison, which migrated in summer as far north as the Saskatchewan and southward in winter to the Mexican border, suggests that it is quite possible that these animals did not habitually spend the winter in Alaska, but on the approach of the cold season migrated southward to warmer climates, or crossed into Siberia on the former land connection over what are now Bering Straits. If this hypothesis be correct, the climate of Alaska during the Pleistocene and recent periods may not have radically differed from the climate of to-day.

The extension of placer mining in Alaska, when conducted in a more systematic manner than at present, will undoubtedly bring to light other forms of large mammals, most probably types related to those already mentioned, together with the remains of carnivorous types.

RECENT DISCOVERIES BEARING ON THE ANTIQUITY

OF MAN IN EUROPE.

[With 18 plates.]

By GEORGE GRANT MACCURDY, Yale University.

INTRODUCTION.

Every ten years our Government takes a census. This happens to be the year in which it is done. It is also good policy for a science, especially if it is a relatively new one, to take a periodical account of stock. The science of prehistoric anthropology need have no fear of the satisfactory outcome of such a test at this time. I have been asked to be the census taker for the European field, and consider myself fortunate, not only in the field, but also in the period to be covered. Nowhere else has the prehistoric, the whole problem of man's antiquity, been studied with such thoroughness and with such happy results. Of the nearly one hundred years since prehistoric archeology began to take shape and to grow into what is now becoming a real science, no decade has shown a more satisfactory record than the one just closed. To its achievements the present paper is devoted.

How are we to measure the growth of the decade in question? The correct result requires a knowledge not only of what is now known but also of what was known in 1900. The annual output in the way of publications is one of the best gauges of activity, of the rate of progress in a given subject. Ten years ago the prehistoric output was well provided for in the journals dealing with anthropology in general, in the proceedings of periodical congresses, the transactions of local societies, and occasional special publications. These channels continue to be utilized in increasing ratio, which ordinarily would meet the requirements of a healthy, steady growth. But they have not sufficed. New and more highly specialized journals have sprung into existence, new prehistoric societies and congresses have been organized, and special publications financed. At this moment I do not recall a single purely prehistoric European journal of importance

dating back to 1900. Of those founded since then, there should be mentioned: L'Homme Préhistorique (Paris), a monthly founded in 1903; La Revue Préhistorique (Paris), a monthly founded in 1906; Praehistorische Zeitschrift (Berlin), founded in 1909; Mannus, Zeitschrift für Vorgeschichte, Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Vorgeschichte (Würzburg), founded in 1909. In December, 1903, the Société Préhistorique de France was founded. It publishes a monthly bulletin; also in 1906 a handbook appeared, Manuel de Recherches Préhistoriques, and since 1905 has held a congress annually, each compte rendu of which forms a large volume of about a thousand pages.

a

In addition to these new channels, there should be mentioned certain special publications made possible through the generosity of patrons of the science, either private individuals or learned societies. One of these, the joint work of de Villeneuve, Verneau, and Boule, and entitled "Les Grottes de Grimaldi (Baoussé-Roussé)," was due to the initiative of Prince Albert I. of Monaco. The latter is at present promoting a new and important project, which might be styled a paleolithic survey of northern Spain. The work is in charge of a committee consisting of Hermilio Alcalde del Rio, P. Lorenzo Sierra, Abbé Henri Breuil, Abbé Jean Bouyssonie, and Dr. Hugo Obermaier. The report of last summer's campaign is highly gratifying and gives assurance of another publication worthy to rank with that on the caverns of Grimaldi. The Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres has also become a patron of prehistoric archeology, generously supporting from its funds the joint explorations of French caverns by Cartailhac and Breuil.

This much increased literary output presupposes a corresponding activity in the field, the museum, and the study. A record of the explorations in the field alone would far surpass the limits of this paper. The results have been so comprehensive, so cumulative in their effect, that only the alert have been able to keep pace with the progress. It has been a period of intensive study as well as of generalization. The careful scientific exploration of new stations has led to a revision of old data and often the re-exploration of old localities.

A list of the more notable achievements would include such items as Rutot's contributions to our knowledge of a pre-Chellean industry; those of Penck relating to man and the glacial period; the discovery of paleolithic human remains at Krapina, Mauer (near Hei

a Two quarto volumes, Monaco, 1906.

H. Obermaier. Der diluviale Mensch in der Provinz Santander (Spanien). Praehistorische Zeitschrift, vol. 1, 183, 1909.

© Station discovered in 1899, but not published comprehensively till 1906.

delberg), Le Moustier, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Combe-Capelle, Le Pech de l'Azé, and La Ferrassie; the studies of Breuil, Cartailhac, Capitan and others relating to paleolithic mural paintings and engravings; Commont's recent explorations at the classic station of Saint-Acheul; those of Martin and Giraux at La Quina; the researches of Szombathy, Hoernes, and Obermaier in Austria-Hungary, those of R. R. Schmidt and of Wiegers in Germany, and of Bächler in Switzerland. Mention has already been made of the work done in the caverns of Grimaldi and that begun in northern Spain, both under the generous patronage of the Prince of Monaco. To enumerate all the important stations recently discovered, even of the paleolithic period alone, would require more space than is at my disposal here. There is therefore need of limiting this study chronologically as well as geographically. Excepting the bare mention of quite recent paleolithic discoveries by S. J. Czarnowski in the caverns of Russian Poland, the countries to be included are France and Belgium in the center, with Switzerland and parts of Germany and Austria-Hungary on the east, and Spain to the south. We shall not even cross the channel, as we might well do, for paleolithically England has much in common with France and Belgium, and English students of the period in question have by no means been idle of late.

The time element must also be reduced. The original table of relative chronology provided for an age of stone, of bronze, and of iron. For the present let us ignore the last two. This leaves the stone age, at first applied to the neolithic only, then divided into paleolithic and neolithic, and finally into eolithic, paleolithic, and neolithic. It is a case of the first being last and the last first in more senses than one, for during the past decade there have developed what may well be styled an eolithic school as well as a paleolithic school. Students of the neolithic on the other hand, while particularly active, must still await a more favorable moment for correlation, for crystallization of data. By common consent, then, we shall eliminate the neolithic from the present discussion, with only a passing reference to its place and divisions in the table of relative chronology.

As for the eolithic school, I endeavored five years ago to sum up its work in a paper entitled "The Eolithic Problem." Since then. investigations have been carried on almost continuously. Attempts were made to explain away the origin of eoliths by the invocation of flint mills as factories for their wholesale production, but such a E. von Koken and R. R. Schmidt have in preparation a large work to be called "Die paläolithischen Kulturstätten Deutschlands."

Paleolit na zboczu Gory smardzewskiej. Kosmos, vol. 31, Lemberg, 1906. • American Anthropologist, n. s., vol. 7, 425-479, 1905.