Copenhagen (1869), Bologna (1871), Brussels (1872), Stockholm (1874), Buda-Pesth (1876), Lisbon (1880), Paris (1889), Moscow (1892), Paris (1900), Monaco (1906), and Geneva (1912). The published proceedings of these Congresses contain the most complete records of the progress of the science, especially as regards Europe. After the cloud of scepticism which enveloped its early and evolutionary stages had been swept aside, anthropology found a footing at the British Association, at first as a sectional department, but since 1884 it became expedient to devote a special section for the exclusive consideration of its doctrines. At the same time it cannot be denied that the negative side of the evolution problem, which had so long found a refuge among religious bodies under the false assumption that their views had the imprimatur of the Biblical narrative of creation, had still its advocates for it seems that no amount of evidence can eradicate the rooted objections of some persons to the doctrine of evolution. As a comment on the disputations of earlier years, on the supposed simian characters of the Neanderthal and Canstadt skulls, I may quote the following remarks by the late Professor Virchow at a meeting of the C.A.P. held at Moscow in 1892 :—
Virchow on "Neanderthal and Canstadt Skulls."
"Les objets de la paléo-anthropologie sont si rares et pour la plupart si douteux que jusqu'ici la tentative de la description de la race la plus ancienne de 1'homme quaternaire dépasse les force de la science. En Europe, nous avons eu deux examples bien décourageants :— ceux du crâne de Canstadt et du crâne de Néanderthal, qui ont été regardés par des savants éminents comme ayant appertenu aux ancêtres directs de la race Européenne primitive. II y a quinze jours, au Congrès des anthropologues allemands a Ulm, nous avons discuté la question soulevée à propos de ces deux pièces, et nous avons trouvé que le crâne de Canstadt n'appartient pas a l'époque quaternaire et que le crâne de Néanderthal est pour le moins tres loin d'avoir une forme typique." (C.A.P., 1892, vol. ii., p. 224.)
The difficulty of discovering and correctly interpreting the phenomena of fossil man is a poor apology for the readiness with which anthropologists admit into their speculations so many objects of doubtful authenticity. It seems to me that it was in defiance of all scientific methods and rules of correct
