iticised it. Sir Edwin Ray Lankester,
Professor Sollas, and Dr. Keith have claimed in recent publications that
the brain of Neanderthal man was as large as, if not larger than, that
of modern man. [*] Professor Sollas even observes that "the brain increases
in volume as we go backward." This is, apparently, so serious a reversal
of the familiar statement in regard to the evolution of man that we must
consider it carefully.
*See especially an address by Professor Sollas in the
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, Vol. LXVI.
(1910).
Largeness of brain in an individual is no indication of intelligence,
and smallness of brain no proof of low mentality. Some of the greatest
thinkers, such as Aristotle and Leibnitz, had abnormally small heads.
Further, the size of the brain is of no significance whatever except in
strict relation to the size and weight of the body. Woman has five or
six ounces less brain-matter than man, but in proportion to her average
size and the weight of the vital tissue of her body (excluding fat) she
has as respectable a brain as man. When, however, these allowances have
been made, it has usually been considered that the average brain of a
race is in proportion to its average intelligence. This is not strictly
true. The rabbit has a larger proportion of brain to body than
the elephant or horse, and the canary a larger proportion than the
chimpanzee. Professor Sollas says that the average cranial capacity of
the Eskimo is 1546 cubic centimetres, or nearly that assigned to the
average Parisian.
Clearly the question is very complex, and some of these recent
authorities conclude that the cranial capacity, or volume of the
brain, has no relation to intelligence, and therefore the size of the
Neanderthal skull neither confirms nor disturbs the theory of evolution.
The wise man will suspend his judgment until the whole question has
been fully reconsidered. But I would point out that some of the
recent criticisms are exaggerated. The Gibraltar skull is estimated
by Professor Sollas himself to have a capacity of about 1260; and his
conclusion that it is an abnormal or feminine skull rests on no positive
grounds. The Chapelle-aux-Saints skull ALONE is proved to have the high
capacity of 1620; and it is as yet not much more than a supposition that
the earlier skulls had been wrongly measured. But, further, the
great French authority, M. Boule, who measured the capacity of the
Chape
|