family into an inaccessible past. Clearly, therefore, it is to be regarded as only an hypothesis or, rather, a fiction. Without the support which it received from the Biblical legend, it could scarcely have maintained itself almost down to the present, as it did in the patriarchal theory of the original state of man to which it gave rise. The Aristotelian theory of the gradual origin of more comprehensive organizations, terminating in the State, is no less a fiction; the social communities existing side by side in the period of Greece were arbitrarily represented as having emerged successively in the course of history. Quite naturally, therefore, this philosophical hypothesis, in common with the corresponding legend of the original family, presupposes primitive man to have possessed the same characteristics as the man of to-day. Thus, it gives no answer at all to the question concerning the nature of this primitive man.

When, therefore, modern anthropology made the first attempt to answer this question on the basis of empirical facts, it was but natural to assume that the characteristics of original man were not to be learned from a study of existing peoples, nor, indeed, from history, but that the data for the solution of the problem were of a prehistoric nature, to be found particularly in those human remains and those products of man's activity that have been preserved in the strata of the earth's crust. What we no longer find on the earth, so it was held, we must seek under the earth. And thus, about six decades ago, prehistoric anthropology began to gather material, and this has gradually grown to a considerable bulk. Upon the completion of this task, however, it appeared, as might, of course, have been expected, that psychology could gain but little in this way. The only source from which it might derive information lay in the exhumed objects of art. Then, however, the very disappointing discovery was made that, as regards implements of stone, drawings on the walls of caves which he inhabited, and pictures cut into horn or bone, the artistic achievements of the man of diluvial times did not differ essentially from those of the present-day savage. In so far as physical characteristics are concerned, however, the discovered remains of bones seemed to point to certain differences. While these differences, of course, were incapable of establishing any direct psychological conclusions, the fact that the measurements of the skeletal parts more closely resembled those of animals, and, in particular, that the measurements of the interior of the skull were smaller than those of the savages of our own time, offered indirect evidence of a lower development. Because of the close relation of cranial capacity to size of brain, moreover, a lower degree of intelligence was also indicated. Nevertheless, the remains that have been brought to light have not as yet led to any indubitable conclusions. There have been fairly numerous discoveries pointing to races that resemble the lower tribes among contemporary peoples, and but a few cases in which uncertainty is possible, and concerning which, therefore, there exists a conflict of opinions. A typical instance is the history of one of the first discoveries made in Europe of the remains of a prehistoric man. It was in 1856, in German territory, that there was discovered, in a grotto or cave in the Neander valley, near Duesseldorf, a very remarkable skull, though only, of course, the bones of the cranium and not the facial bones. All were at once agreed that these were the remains of a very primitive man. This was indicated particularly by characteristics which are still to be found, though scarcely in so pronounced a form, among certain lower races of men. Of special significance were the strongly developed, prominent bone-elevations above the eye-sockets. Some of the investigators believed that the long-sought 'homo primigenius' had perhaps at last been discovered. It was generally agreed that the form of the skull resembled most closely that of the modern Australian. In more recent years, however, anthropologists have developed somewhat more exact methods of measurement and of the reconstruction of a skeleton from parts only incompletely given. When Hermann Klaatsch, equipped with this knowledge, carried out such a reconstruction of the Neanderthal skull, he came upon the surprising fact that its capacity was somewhat greater than that of the present-day Australian. Little as this tells us concerning the actual intelligence of these primitive men, it nevertheless clearly indicates how uncertain the conclusions of prehistoric anthropology still are. A number of other recent discoveries in Germany, France, and elsewhere, have proved that several prehistoric races of men once lived in Europe. Some of these, no doubt, date back far beyond the last glacial period, and perhaps even beyond the period preceding this, for we now know that several glacial periods here succeeded one another. Nevertheless, no important divergencies from still existent races of men have been found. This, of course, does not imply that no differences exist; it means merely that none has as yet been positively detected, and that therefore the anatomy of prehistoric man can give us no information concerning the psychological aspect of the question regarding the nature of primitive man.