Man.

Man. As the races of mankind, the structure and functions of the human body, and the higher activities most distinctive of man are discussed in special articles, it is enough here to restrict attention to three problems: (1) the human characteristics, (2) the origin or descent of man, and (3) the antiquity of the race.

(1) Characteristics.—Considered like any other organism, man is strictly the highest of the Primates, differing from the anthropoid apes only in degree. In adult life he is unique in his erect posture, and in the freedom of his hands from any direct share in locomotion. His body is unusually naked, his canine teeth are not longer than their neighbours, his thumbs are larger and more opposable than those of monkeys, and his feet are distinguished by the horizontal sole which rests flatly on the ground, by the projecting heel, and by the non-opposable great toe which normally lies quite parallel to the others. His face is notably more vertical than that of apes, lying below rather than in front of the forepart of the brain-case; the jaws, the orbits, and the ridges above them are relatively smaller; the nose-bones project more beyond the upper jaw; and the chin is more prominent than in other Primates. A much more momentous characteristic, however, is involved in the fact that the normal brain of an adult man is more than twice as heavy as that of the nearest monkeys, for this structural advance is an index to that intellectual and emotional development which raises even the savage many degrees above the brute, and which in its highest realisation is still full of promise. Therefore, while all naturalists allow, with Professor Owen, that there is 'an all-pervading similitude of structure' between the human body and that of the anthropoid apes, there is equal agreement that in intelligence, emotions, and controlled conduct man is pre-eminent.

But, apart from these zoological considerations, it is interesting to notice some statistical results in regard to human (and especially British) characteristics derived from the Report (1890) of the Anthropometric Committee of the British Association. Thus, the average height of man is 5 ft. 5¼ in., the Polynesians leading the way with an average of 5 ft. 9.33 in., the English professional class following with 5 ft. 9.14 in., and so on, down to the Bushmen, who average 4 ft. 4.78 in. As to the adult population of Britain, in height the Scotch stand first (68.61 in.), the Irish second (67.90 in.), the English third (67.36 in.), and the Welsh last (66.66 in.), the average being 67.66 in. The Scotch are also first in weight (165.3 lb.), the Welsh second (158.3 lb.), the English third (155 lb.), and Irish fourth (154.1 lb.), the average being 158.2 lb. Again, a typical adult Englishman has a stature of 5 ft. 7½ in., a chest girth of 36½ in., a weight of 10 stone 10 lb., and is able to draw, as in drawing a bow, a weight of 77½ lb. As to the sexes (in England), the average male stature and weight is 67.36 in. and 155 lb., as against 62.65 in. and 122.3 lb. for the women. Moreover, the men are about twice as strong. For further results, many of which are of profound practical suggestiveness, the Report should be consulted.

(2) Origin or Descent of Man.—Even when we confine our attention to the opinions of those who accept the theory of evolution as a modal explanation of nature, we are in fairness bound to recognise some diversity of opinion in regard to the origin of man. (a) So unique does he appear to some that his descent from a humbler organism seems incredible—a position in favour of which some arguments will be found in the cited works of A. de Quatrefages. (b) Alfred Russel Wallace and others 'reject the idea of "special creation" for man, as being entirely unsupported by facts, as well as in the highest degree improbable,' yet believe that his progress from the brute was due to introduction of new causes, or 'spiritual influxes,' to which the higher human characteristics owe their origin. (c) The majority of naturalists deem this hypothesis of special spiritual influx inconsistent with the continuity of evolution, which they regard as a 'natural' process, self-sufficient throughout, for the origin of man as for other grand results.

The arguments which go to show that man is descended from a simpler animal are, of course, the same as those which substantiate the general theory. Thus, his structure and functions are not demonstrably different in kind from those of the nearest Primates; he develops from a fertilised egg-cell, and passes through successively higher grades of organisation in a manner which seems only interpretable as the recapitulation of ancestral history; he varies as other animals do, is subject to similar diseases, and exhibits numerous reversions and rudimentary structures which are enigmas, except on the theory that he had his origin from an ape-like stock. How his evolution was brought about is a problem requiring much elucidation, but among the special factors which conduced to evolve his higher characteristics of wisdom and gentleness it seems reasonable to attach much importance to the necessity for cunning in the struggle with stronger mammals, to the consequences of the prolonged weakness of infancy, to the influences of family life and of the indispensable combination into larger aggregates. As to the future, if we disregard minor changes—e.g. in hair and teeth, for which fashion and 'civilisation' are responsible—it seems almost certain, as Herbert Spencer has emphasised, that the progressive evolution of man must be restricted to intellectual and emotional qualities.

(3) Antiquity of the Race.—From the human remains, and far more frequently from the weapons, tools, and other vestiges of human activity, found in the more recent deposits on the earth's surface, it is obviously legitimate, after due caution, to infer the presence of man at the time—certainly not estimable in the years of any chronological system—when these beds were formed. Cuvier and others tried, indeed, to avoid this conclusion—for instance, by exaggerating the power of floods in mixing up recent deposits; while Boucher de Perthes, who in 1836 discovered flint axes along with mammoth bones in undisturbed strata 20–30 feet below the surface, had to wait almost twenty years for a fair hearing, and yet longer for decisive corroboration. Both were gained, however, and the conversion of naturalists may be dated from 1863, when Lyell summarised the existing evidence in his Antiquity of Man. Since then the problem has been worked at with ever-increasing energy and success, and there is now general agreement that man was alive during the later stages of the glacial epoch, while there are indications of his presence in Pliocene and, according to a few, even in Miocene ages (see GEOLOGY).

Older, however, than any indications of his Pliocene presence man must surely be, for zoologists refer his origin not to any of the existing anthropoid apes, as is sometimes popularly supposed, but to the common stock which included their ancestors and his, and which had apparently begun to diverge in Upper Miocene times. In a similar way, our impression of the antiquity of man is increased when we remember that the most ancient human remains, such as the Neanderthal skull, do not take us appreciably nearer any low type of man such as the ancestral forms presumably exhibited. Moreover, the oldest distinct implements and artistic products suggest not the handicraft of beginners, but the work of men behind whom there already lay a long history.

See ANTHROPOID APES, STONE AGE, BRONZE AGE, IRON AGE, EARTH, FLINT IMPLEMENTS, PLEISTOCENE, SKELETON, SKULL; the articles on the various continents, countries, and races; also the following articles:

Also Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871); Dawkins, Cave-Hunting (1874), Early Man in Britain (1880); A. Geikie, The Great Ice Age (1877), Prehistoric Europe (1881); Haeckel, Anthropogenie (2d ed. 1874; Eng. trans. 1879); Hartmann, Anthropoid Apes (Inter. Sc. Series, 1885); Huxley, Man's Place in Nature (1863); Lyell, Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863); St George Mivart, Man and Apes (1874); Peschel, Races of Man (trans. 1876); Caspari, Urgeschichte der Menschheit (2d ed. 1877); Mortillet, Le Préhistorique Antiquité de l'Homme (1885); Quatrefoies, L'Espèce Humaine (1861), Histoire Générale des Races Humaines (1887); J. Ranke, Der Mensch (1886); Topinard, Éléments d'Anthropologie Générale (1885); A. R. Wallace, Darwinism (1889); Wiedersheim, Der Bau des Menschen (1887); C. Vogt, Vorlesungen über den Menschen (1864; trans. 1864); and Tylor's works.