suppose that his narrative wore an appearance of probability from the state of the world then, or he would not have proposed it to the Jews. You see, I am supposing that the date of the Pentateuch has not been disturbed by recent criticisms. Into those questions I shall not enter. At present I must go on with the immediate subject in hand.

Now, what has happened to disturb the highest received opinion Simply this: Geology, as a science which burrows much underground, has found evidence of a nature which seems to throw considerable difficulties in the way of the whole science of chronology. Amongst other things it finds some relics of human beings buried in a way and so associated with other remains, that it is impossible for the geologist to suppose that man has not been on this earth a great deal longer than 9000 years. What are these remains and these evidences? I admit to you they have a certain amount of force taken collectively; but let us take them one by one, and no matter what their number, if they are singly weak and inconclusive, the inference drawn from them is, to say the least, premature. The relics of the earth's ancient inhabitants which have been found may be divided into many classes. The Danish peat and shell mounds, the Swiss lake dwellings, the relics in the bed of the Nile, the cave remains and the flint implements, are all entitled to separate con­sideration, and I shall take them in the order in which they are named.

First, there is found in Denmark a deposit of peat or bog-moss, whose age is concluded not only from its thickness, but also from the varieties of trees embedded, showing, it is said, that large trees lived and died while the moss was forming; and also that there was at one time a prevalence of pine-trees, another time of oak, and at another of alder, though on the same spot few except beech trees are now found. At the bottom of this deposit a stone implement was found. Others occur at various depths, and in the sand hills on the coast; hence it has been concluded that the human beings which formed them lived an immense time ago. I must confess, at any rate in this instance, I cannot see why. It is not certain that the peat took such an immense period to accumulate in the position where it is found. Such formations are rapid or not according to circumstances. In a warm climate the growth of peat is slow, but in cold ones, where decaying vegetable matter is not removed by insects, peat mosses accumulate in a short space of time. We learn from Rennie that in the time of Oliver Cromwell a forest in Rossshire was overthrown by a storm, which gave rise in so short a time to a peat moss that the inhabitants dug peat there less than fifty years subsequently. A similar bog was formed in as rapid a manner in Dumfriesshire, after the overthrow of the Forest of Drumlanrig, in 1756. I learn also from Lyell, that Hatfield Moss, in Yorkshire, was a forest 1800 years ago, and not only has peat been dug there

page 7

in immense quantities, but fir and oak trees ninety feet long have been dug out and sold for the masts and keels of ships. In the same moss, and in several others, Roman roads have been found covered by eight feet of peat. Coins, axes, and arms, and utensils of Roman origin are also found; these bogs at least must have originated long after the Roman period.     De Luc ascer­tained that the site of the ancient forests of Hyrcinia, Semana, Ardennes, and several others, are now occupied by mosses and fens, and a great part of these changes have with much probability been attributed to the strict orders given by Severus and other emperors to destroy all the wood in the conquered provinces. Several of the British forests, which are now mosses, were cut at different periods, by order of the English Parliament, because they harbored wolves or outlaws. Thus the Welsh woods were cut and burnt in the reign of Edward I., as were many of those in Ireland by Henry II. to prevent the natives from harboring in them and harassing his troops (Lyell's Principles). So far, therefore, from concluding that remains bedded in peat are very ancient, we have just as much, if not more, reason for saying that they are very modern. Yes, but says the geologist, we have discovered instruments of stone, and we find by a comparison of the remains which ancient inhabitants have left to us, that there has been a time when men were not acquainted with the use of metals, and all their implements were made of stone. This is called the stone period, and belongs to one of the most primitive conditions of the himian race. This period was succeeded by one when men came to know the use of bronze; and as we find axe-heads, spears, and arrows made of that material, we conclude that these must have belonged to a more modern date, distinguished as the bronze age. Lastly, relics occur which seem to have a much more modern aspect, and in addition to their evincing a larger acquaintance with the arts, are made of iron; and this we distinguish as the most recent age of all - the iron age. Materials of every period are found in the peat mosses; and when we find at the bottom of all an instrument of stone, we conclude that it is most ancient of all, and dates back probably to a very remote age in the annals of humanity. So you see it is not from its position in the peat that they conclude its antiquity, for it might have sunk from the surface to where they find it, but from the material. But let me urge that this proof stands much in need of confirmation. It is not so certain that these periods were so clearly marked as the Danish antiquarian makes out. There may have been a period when iron was not known, but who knows this? The stone and iron implements are found side by side at times, and the only reason for concluding that they represent separate periods, is by supposing that once the natives knew the use of iron they could not use stone implements any more. But were there no poor natives who could not get iron; if there were none, would they never have recourse to

page 8

Again, in America, a copper age has to be supposed intermediate, between that of stone and bronze, and the grounds of this supposi­tion are, that the Spaniards found bronze among the natives of Peru and Mexico, but nothing but copper is found in North America. If we suppose both ages to have been contemporaneous, we shall destroy this ill-grounded theory. It has been also objected that, unless the knowledge of metals was contemporaneous with that of stone implements, rocks could not have been quarried.

*When the Spaniards landed in Central America, they found both stone and copper implements among the natives. This was only 345 years ago. 

page 9

To this it is replied that, by lighting a fire over the rock it becomes so rent and fissured that it is easily managed. This is rather unsatisfactory if we remember that mineral deposits only occur among the older and harder rocks. For iron, the natives are supposed to owe their knowledge, first, to meteoric stones, and after this discovery our archaeological friends kindly allow history to be our guide. I shall not stop to question now many points of the theory which appear to me to be gratuitous assumption. It is a point of the controversy on which Australians are peculiarly fitted to judge, as they happen to be thrown into contact with a race of human beings who are, to all intents and purposes in their Stone Age. I may say, however, that not one single argument has yet been advanced which will give a definite and decided proof as to the age of the stone or bronze period; when we ask for facts we get inference, and that not of a very philosophical kind.

Turn we now to other evidence. All along the Danish coast mounds may be seen, consisting chiefly of thousands of castaway shells of the oyster, cockle and other mollusca, mixed up with the bones of various quadrupeds, birds and fish. Scattered all through them are flint knives, hatchets and other instruments of stone, horn, wood and bone, with fragments of coarse pottery. The stone implements are less rude than those found in the peat, and there are never any metal tools among them. Such mounds are three or four feet high, at times, 1000 feet long and 150 feet wide. Similar refuse heaps are found in America, and I myself, have seen one in Australia, but certainly, not of very great antiquity. There are two reasons for concluding that those found in Denmark are very old. First, the relative position of land and sea has slightly altered since they were used by man, but even geologists admit that the evidence here is not conclusive. Secondly, the shells found in the refuse-heaps are of a size only found in salt water, whereas the waters of the Baltic are now nearly always brackish, except during a preva­lence of gales, which drive in the waters of the sea; so, that with regard to these "shell middens," as they are called, the whole ques­tion depends upon whether the shells came from the Baltic before it was brackish, and if so whether the evidence of such an amount of upheaval proves immense antiquity.

In the first place I must state, that I do not think these oysters and scallop shells come from the Baltic at all. It is not hard to suppose that, when such fish were not to be found in the brackish waters, the savages would go to a distance for them. And this seems to be the true explanation of the case, because the mounds are found close to the edge of the sea, and yet there are places on the Swedish coast where the peculiar brackish water shells of the Baltic are found 400 feet above the ocean level. Besides this, geological research has proved beyond doubt that the Baltic has preserved its insulated character during a very long series of

page 10

geological changes, even when the Swedish peninsula was no more than a narrow strip of land, and the whole of the east coast, as evidenced by fossil remains, was submerged. In the most remote periods oysters and scallops are rare as Baltic fossils. I think we, after this, should have no difficulty in supposing that those found in the shell-middens come from the North Sea. But, admitting that they did come from the Baltic, are we obliged to suppose such a great antiquity? Not at all. If there is one thing more than another which geologists must admit, it is the uncertainty of the rate at which upheaval may take place. I know that the Baltic is appealed to as a place where the ascertained rise is said to be about 40 inches in a century; but the data for this calculation have only been collected within the last fifty years. If they were true, the monastery on the Island of Monkholm, which was built in 1028, must have been constructed on a rock nearly a fathom under water. But the fact is that the whole theory is based on an erroneous assump­tion. Just like saying (as a writer in the Edinburgh Review wittily remarks) that as A B grew half-an-inch within the last twelve months, and being now six feet high, he must be 144 years old.

of two tribes contemporaneous with each other and differing in their habits. It might be, also, that as they moved to the eastwards they became further removed from the sources of metals - thus were obliged to content themselves with stone implements - and thus the stone period is more modern. It is also remarkable that some of the stone instruments are formed of a mineral which must have come from Asia. In some few lakes as well as in forests and battle­fields in Switzerland, there is a mixture of bronze and iron imple­ments together with Greek coins and medals struck at Marseilles. In the face of this fact it is somewhat puzzling to find an antiquity of over six thousand years claimed for the Swiss lake dwellings. Marseilles was founded as a colony by the Phocians, and these people came from within 200 miles of the country where at that time, according to Herodotus, large lake villages existed. Would it be very unreasonable to suppose that some of the Swiss lakes were colonised by Paonians shortly after the arrival of the Greeks at Marseilles. If this is considered improbable, let it be borne in mind that Australia is scarcely 70 years colonised, and though now so extensively settled, scarcely numbers a million of inhabitants. It is argued, however, that the stone period must have lasted a long time, because of the great diversity between the implements found. Some are of the rudest and simplest manufacture, and these are considered to be of the most ancient, and others are of the most delicate finish, and such perfection must have taken ages to have arrived at. But let me modestly protest against this reasoning. It is taking rather too much for granted, and arguing in a circle. We cannot be sure that the specimens do not belong to the same period, nay, may not have belonged to the same family. We know that savages do not improve in their manufacture, nor can any one show the slightest improvement since the manufacture of the oldest boomerang or spear on this continent. On the other hand, I am sure I could show in the hut of any black fellow the greatest difference between the skill of two savages, in making their weapons. Then as to the argument - they prove that the rough weapons are the most ancient, because they are the most rude; and they account for their rudeness by their antiquity. I admit to you that geologists are of opinion that the bronze age must have extended over a long period of time, not only because of the state of the relics, but from their multitude; and the same reasoning they extend to the lake villages, but it is not exactly correct to state that an immense quantity of such remains are found. The quantity if amassed together would be really inconsiderable; and, let me add, that even if they were very numerous, the conclusion as to the time is, I venture to suggest, considerably beyond the requirements of the case.

I pass over a great many other facts, which might be treated in a more convincing manner than those which I have brought before

page 12

you. Of course I do not pretend to give a complete answer to every fact, to do so would require a very large volume, and not a lecture; yet if I do not it must not be imagined that it is impossible or even difficult to answer them. If in the case of the striking proofs of man's antiquity the difficulty disappears, it will easily do so in the others. I intend, therefore, only to allude to the Indian mounds in North America. These are of immense size, and show the Indian to have once lived in cities. The relics of pottery, &c., found on the mounds, is a proof also that they were better acquainted with the arts of civilisation than they are now. The question of antiquity rests upon the fact that there are trees 800 years old on some of them, and the probability that other trees of equal age have preceded these. In one case a river has advanced on to the bank of the mound, and then receded.

Not to delay, I may mention that some antiquaries are of opinion these cities may have flourished about 2000 years ago. This period would be quite sufficient, in the opinion of very able men, to account for all the appearances of antiquity. To speak of them, therefore, as being 8000 or 10,000 years old is, to those who judge from the fact without being committed to any theory, very perplexing. In the same way must we treat that instance given by Mr. Dewier of the human remains buried underneath four forests super-imposed upon another. In the first place, the evidence of the four forests is of the most doubtful kind, and could not, as far as I am aware, be reconciled with other appearances of upheaval on the banks of the river; but if they were, another and much more probable explanation can be found. The banks of the Mississippi are formed of a loose alluvial deposit which has been deposited by the river in the shape of fine mud. It is of a loose and open texture, so that there are places where the rains, sometimes in the short space of a few years, cut down immense chasms and remove thousands of tons of earth. Again, the river brings down trees and roots in such number that islands of drift timber are constantly forming. One of the most interesting features of this river, says Sir C. Lyell, is the frequent formation of what are termed rafts, or masses of floating trees, which have been arrested in their progress by snags and logs, and some­times stretch from one side of the river to the other. The raft of the Atchalfalaya collected in about thirty-eight years, previous to 1816, and formed a continuous island no less than two miles long and eight feet deep. The whole rose and fell with the water, yet was covered with bushes and trees, and its surface enlivened in the autumn by a variety of beautiful flowers. It went on increasing until about 1835, when some of the trees upon it bad grown to a height of sixty feet. Steps were taken by the State of Louisiana to clear the navigation, and this was only effected in the space of four years. Now, let us suppose that in the year 1777, i.e., a year

page 13

before the island commenced to form, that a boat was upset and the bodies of some men sunk in that spot; and suppose, further, that the island increased so much at length that it obstructed the channel altogether. Now, what would be the result? The banks of the Mississippi are higher than the country around, and the pent-up waters would soon seek another bed. In all probability they would force an exit just beside the island, and leave a section of it exposed like a cliff. What should we see? A deposit of trees many feet thick, impressed in thick succession. Above all would be a dense growth of brushwood and flowers, amid which graceful trees shoot up high into the air. How we should wonder at the immense operations of nature, and well we might. How some would speculate on the immense lapse of time which it took to form such a bed. Look, they would say, on those trees, one above another. Count their rings. Why, that thick one with knotted bark is one thousand years old at least; and not only must we allow for the age of that tree, but think how long it must have taken for it to decay. How long before it fell to the ground. And here, mark, it is not a question of one, but several placed one above another, and then, above all, a surface soil and trees more than sixty feet high growing over it. But what is this? In the midst of our speculations we find a jaw bone of one of the unfortunate boat's crew. Here man existed, they say, ages and ages ago. We don't like to ask how long ago, for the case looks strong, and we would willingly leave ourselves in the pos­session of a belief which will be a great comfort to us one day, no matter how scientific we are, and whose absence causes a desolate void in man's heart; for, alas! even geologists are but human. But the conclusions are forced upon us. Pointing to the mass of trees, and taking his stand upon their immense stumps, one more bold holds forth on this jaw bone, and knocks down centuries with it. Ten thousand years, he says, are not sufficient for the succession of events before man came into the world. We timidly venture to suggest six as chiming in with other facts in other parts of the world, and we are laughed to scorn, taunted with evading facts and twisting arguments for the sake of bolstering up an effete moral philosophy. Well, we are both in the wrong it seems. The wisdom of men is folly in, the sight of God, and there is no one to tell us that the period of 6,000 years is almost as preposterous as 10,000; for the deposit was formed less than 100 years ago.

I come now to a very important class of facts, which will require a more detailed consideration, not only because of their interest, but because they have been the starting points of all that has been lately said upon the subject of man's antiquity. I allude to the borings in the Nile and the flint implements. First as to the Nile. A series of borings were commenced, at the suggestion of the English Government, across the valley of the Nile. Fifty-one pits were sunk near Heliopolis, where the

page 14

valley is sixteen miles wide. Twenty-seven were sunk near Memphis, where the width is only five. For the first sixteen or twenty-four feet the pits were large, and many entire articles were picked up, such as jars, vases, pots, a small human figure in burnt clay, and a copper knife. After the depth above-mentioned only a small bore could be used, because of the water, and then only fragments of brick and pottery could be obtained; but these were found wherever a hole was dug.

Now two things are concluded from these remains, and these are, that the depth at which the relics were found was the bottom of the river when they were deposited; and secondly, that at the rate at which the Nile deposits mud it must have taken at least 12,000 years to cover them to such a depth. But I need hardly tell you that solid objects will sink in mud, and that they are especially liable to do so in the loose light mud of the Nile; more so in that river than others, because of its periodical inundation. I trust I need not explain the why in such a plain matter, but you may ask, is there any limit to which they may sink? In ordinary cases the limit would be where the weight of the object would be insufficient to break through the compactness of the mud. Supposing the force of the current and the depth of the water to keep the sediment in a loose and oozy state, an object might sink to a very great depth; and every five feet of mud which it penetrated would take from the calculations of the geologist 1000 years. So that, even supposing the rate of increase of the Nile mud to be six inches in a century, nothing would be concluded from finding objects at the very bottom of it. They might have been thrown there a year or two ago.

Now I think you will agree with me that with this simple explanation the art relics found in the Nile now do not wear such a serious aspect. The borings were made by Egyptians, without the superintendence of a European; and I am perfectly willing to accept the fact without remonstrance or allusion to the duplicity of the African character; but I say that really these relics must not be urged as proofs of immense antiquity, even supposing that rate of deposition to be as much or as little as six inches in a century. But such a calculation, let me tell you, is entirely adverse to facts. Mr. Horner, the author of one of the most eminent geological works, a favorer of Lyell's doctrines, says that no certain calculations can be made with the faintest approach to accuracy as to the rate at which the Nile deposits mud. In places it may not be a quarter of an inch, and others it may be several feet. To say, therefore, that the bed was filling up at the rate of six inches in a century, and form a calculation therefrom, is doing more violence to our convictions than any inference which has been advanced in connection with this subject.

I pass on to a more important matter, one to which the origin of the whole controversy may be ascribed. I refer to the flint imple-

page 15

ments. The facts are these: In the gravel pits which abound near the town of Abbeville flint implements, more or less rude, but apparently fashioned by human hands, were found at a great depth below the surface of the soil. The manner in which they occurred left no doubt that they were really a part of the deposit, and in considerable quantity; for when the first was dug up and shown to the workmen they said they had seen many like them before. The deposit is an alluvium or gravel, containing many bones of extinct mammalia. So, when the discovery was fairly established, which it was not until after many years of patient investigation on one side and apathetic neglect on another, it became a matter of considerable probability, that the human beings who had fashioned these implements were contemporaneous with many extinct animals of which there is at present no human record. And it was not alone at Abbeville that such remains were found. They have been discovered in England, but not so extensively as at Abbeville; and there are other places in France and Germany where the same flint implements occur under different circumstances. I need not particularise all the cases. The matter has been for some time before the public, and I am sure there are few of those who hear me now who have not seen something about the digging up of these wonderful flint axes. Well, then, not to lose time, I suppose you see the force of the objection which they give rise to. Here are human remains associated with those of extinct animals ; therefore they must have existed together. Moreover, the peculiar nature of the deposit shows that the remains must have been entombed a very long time ago, for the gravel lies the lowest of the formations of the valley, and is covered in places by a deposit of peat thirty feet thick. It is covered above also by a kind of brick earth, and composed of angular or slightly worn flints. The river, too, cuts down through the centre of all the beds, and, according to appear­ances, the gravel once extended right across the valley from side to side. Now the periods of time which must have elapsed are as follows:- First, the flint gravel became deposited by the wearing down of the chalk strata into the wide valley, about two miles across. Secondly, while these beds were forming animal remains became entombed, and, with them, human implements. Then a peat bog grew in the valley, until it was thirty feet deep, and, last of all, the river began to flow and cut through all the beds in succession, until it came to be what we see it now. On the whole, then, says the writer of a clever article on the subject in the Edinburgh Review, considerable changes must have taken place since these deposits occurred. In the first place the little river which now flows through the valley would never have hollowed it out a width of two miles, neither could it possibly have carried down the chalk flints and deposited them in regular strata in the bottom of the valley, as they are now found. Therefore, at the very outset, we must suppose it to

have taken an immense time to form, and the mode by which the beds have been deposited is entirely concealed from us. One author has suggested that the valley must have been filled by a glacier; and another, one of the most eminent geologists of France, M. Elie de Beaumont, says that the beds are chiefly composed of washed soil, deposited on the flanks of the valley by excessive falls of rain, and that the age of the deposit was analogous to that of the peat moss and Swiss lake habitations. Under this view, you perceive M. de Beaumont would not necessarily regard the animals as contemporaneous with man. The bones might have lain exposed on the sides and surface of the cliffs for hundreds of years, and the flint implements may merely be the washed-down relics of savages who came to this place to form from the flints in the strata, weapons of the necessary shape for their wants. At any rate, the immense antiquity is fast melting away under investigation. I do not say that M. E. de Beaumont is right, and, if he were, that would only account for a very small portion of the implements. But I do say that we are justified in withholding our consent from any theory as to the origin of these strange relics, and that, as yet, whatever evidence has been offered is entirely unconnected with the claims of the school of Lyell. And if any other proof were wanting, it has been furnished lately by the discovery of a human jaw amid the other remains. At first it was treated as a forgery, for I must caution you that there is more than a strong suspicion of tampering with these beds.* I believe it is now proved that more than half of the flint implements exposed have been clever impositions. But, in the case of the bone, I do not think there was any imposition. For many precautions were taken, a committee of savans was sent from Paris and another from London to investigate the matter, and they were unanimous as to the genuineness of the relic. But mark one important result. Two of the French gentlemen declined to commit themselves to any statement as to the age, while the eminent English physicians, Drs. Falconer and Busk, stated some doubts they had as to the age of the jaw. It was then sawn across, and displayed an amount of freshness inconsistent in their opinion with its being coeval with the remains of the extinct quadrupeds, so that this monstrous diffi­culty about the flint instruments is growing a good deal smaller as investigations proceed. But I have not done with the question yet, I wish to dwell a little longer upon the nature and forces which may have produced the valley of the Somme. I wish to

* Mr. Prestwich, in a foot note to a valuable paper on the flint implements, read before the Geological Society, June 3, 1863, pronounces his deliberate opinion that very extensive fraud had been practised in the pretended finding of these relics. Mr. Prestwich was one of the committee of savans first appointed by the Royal Society to enquire into the matter, and enter­tained very different opinions some short time since.

page 17

show you that, so far from being able to account for these, geology does with candour profess its inability to deal with these questions, because of the ignorance of a great many of the vast powers developed in the earth's former history. But I shall speak of this better, when I have treated of the objections brought about the remains in caves. You are aware that, in England, France, Ger­many, America and Australia, wherever caves are found, bones are also found in them. This is due to a good many causes. In the first place, a good number of these caves are mere open fissures or cracks, through which surface drainage might enter and carry to the bottom, not only loam and earth, but also bones, or any objects found upon the surface. Others, are caves which have been used by animals as dens, or places of refuge, and then the bones have been left either by the successive inhabitants, or the prey which they dragged in to devour. Other caves have been used as residences by human beings, and even places of sepulture. The bones in that case are of the most-modern origin. Some way or other, however, caves which have been any length of time exposed, have become filled up with bones, some of great antiquity, and some of much more recent date, and not only caves which have been exposed, but others as well which time and various changes in the strata have completely covered in. Thus, in quarrying amid limestone rocks, it is not at all unusual to break into an opening bridged over by a stalactite, or some other obstruction. These caves contain bones; as already stated, they belonged to animals living at various dates, and, as human remains have been found among them, together with human implements, this has been taken as another argument to prove the antiquity of the human race. But only lately, for it must be understood that the same facts received a very different interpretation up to a recent period. Human remains have long been famous as associated with those of extinct animals, but it was always believed that there was evidence sufficient to prove them widely distinct in point of time. This was Dr. Buckland's opinion to the last, and Sir Charles Lyell himself stated, that he did not believe that they afforded any evidence of man's antiquity. He has now altered his opinion, and the reason given is this, "That of late years we have obtained proofs, that the mammoth and other extinct species which occur in caves occur also in alluvium, imbedded also with relics of human art." So that you perceive Sir Charles Lyell altered his opinion because of the flint instruments in the drift, for that is the only instance in which I am aware that the mammoth remains occur as he describes. Here, then, the conclusion must stand or fall by that arrived at in the case of the flint instruments. A high French authority says that the two remains may not be con­temporaneous, therefore the old arguments which convinced Lyell and Buckland still have their full force. But it may be urged that further evidence has been obtained. An instance particularly relied

page 18

on is, that human remains were once found underneath the skeleton of a cave bear. The bones were in such a position that it seemed nearly certain that at least the leg of the animal had been drifted into the cave in an almost undecomposed state. I confess I do not see the force of this instance. If it had been the whole skeleton, the argument might be entitled to some weight; but how the leg became detached from the body I cannot conceive, if it had been almost undecomposed. Besides, there are so many other ways of accounting for such an appearance. I know from my own observation that decomposition goes on very slowly in caverns, for I have witnessed it in the body of a native in the caves at Mosquito Plains. In that place the ligaments would have remained, I am convinced, for ages. They appear to have done so in the case of the natives entombed in the caves of South America. Amongst a hundred other explana­tions I take this as good and reasonable in the instance referred to. Suppose an unfortunate cave bear to have met with his death while his leg was jammed in a cleft of limestone leading down to the cave. In the course of time decomposition sets in, and the bones are stratified in the bottom of the cave except the leg, which holds fast in the position of its first fixture. Ages roll on until the human period arrives, and then the remains of man become washed down among the others. The same force of water which broke into human sepulchres might also dig up mammoth remains from the drift. Last of all an extraordinary flood takes down the leg of our cave bear. I do not say this is the only explanation, but it is one of many which may be offered, while it does not violate the limits of reason­able probability; and as I offer this explanation, I may draw your attention to an instance which I will now relate to you. In 1852, a workman employed in repairing the roads at Aurignac (a town near the foot of the Pyrenees), observed a hole used as a burrow by rabbits. On reaching as far as the length of his arm, he drew out to his surprise one of the long bones of the human skeleton. His curiosity being excited, he dug a trench, and found a cave closed up by a heavy slab of rock. It was almost filled with bones. The people of Aurignac, astonished to hear of the occurrence of so many human relics in so lonely a spot, flocked to the cave, and Dr. Amid, the mayor, ordered the bones to be taken and re-interred in the parish cemetery; but before this was done, having as a medical man a knowledge of anatomy, he ascertained by counting the homologous bones, that they must have formed parts of no less than 17 skeletons of all sexes and ages; some so young that the ossification of the bones was incomplete. Unfortunately, the bones have since been lost sight of. M. Lartet, an eminent French anatomist and geologist, examined the cave minutely. He found outside the grotto a sloping layer of ashes and charcoal, about seven inches thick. In it were an immense number of bones and implements. Amongst the latter were 100 flint articles, knives, pro-

page 19

jectiles, sling stones, and chips. Among the bone instruments were arrows without barbs, and other tools of reindeer horn. Scattered through the same ashes and earth were bones of cave bears, brown bears (still existing), badgers, polecats, hyenas, wolves, foxes, an elephant, one rhinoceros, horses, asses, pigs, buffaloes, and others too numerous to mention.

The bones of the grass-feeding animals were the most numerous, and they appeared to have been split open either to obtain the mar­row, or else gnawed and bitten by the beast of prey. I cannot share the opinions of those who say, that there was positive proof that the bones had been gnawed or scraped, as if by human beings. When we know the changes to which these remains are subject, it seems to me somewhat unreasonable to take such appearances as proofs that these extinct animals were contemporaneous with man.

If this cave proves anything, it is that some of these extinct ani­mals were in existence at a much more recent period than we imagine. The explanation I take to be simply this: the cave had been used by wild animals, probably hyenas, who had brought the herbivorous animals there to feed upon. Long subsequently it was used as a place of sepulture by human beings, who scraped out the animal remains, and then closed the den by a slab. I consider the closing of the door of the grotto as rather strong proof that it was never used more than as a place of interment during the human period. You see from this instance how different persons may, from the same facts, arrive at entirely different conclusions.

The cave at Aurignac has been regarded by antiquarians as very strong evidence that the human race dated back into the most remote and absurdly distant periods. My opinion is just the reverse; and though there is an equal weight of fact on both sides, I have all history and the whole traditions of the human race to back me out. And observe, I do not violate any fact, or stretch the evidence to support my view. Even supposing that we admit the claims of all the antiquarians, they cannot give us a circumstance nor a clue which would guide us to form an idea of the age of the Aurignac relics. They cannot tell us to what age flint implements belong, or when, from the appearance of the implements, they have been made. They cannot be sure that the cemetery was not finished 2000 or 3000 years ago. The only fact upon which they build is the association of the bones of extinct animals, and this I have shown is far from being satisfactory. But it may be urged there is a more convincing evidence than this. In Auvergne there were numbers of extinct volcanoes, which have not been known to be in activity within historic periods; and underneath the lavas of the most recent eruptions a human skeleton has been found. In the same deposit, but not in the same place, have been found the bones of the hyena and the hippopotamus. Now, it is argued that man must have been

page 20

any record of the buffalo. Caesar in his history speaks of it, and it is urged against us that if there had been elephants and mammoths, and hippopotami, he would have mentioned them too. But it does not at all follow. Caesar did not see everything, neither did he write down everything. He did not intend to give a complete natural history of Northern Europe; and even if he did, he was not in a position to give a complete catalogue. In the course of his wars he would only go to the inhabited parts, and those were not the places in which to see the wild beasts of the country. Besides, we may admit that these animals were extinct then, and still have been contemporaneous with man. The buffalo survived long after Caesar's time, and yet is extinct now. In fact, the more we look into the matter, the more we shall be convinced that if the recent discoveries prove anything, they only prove that man is found to have existed along with a great many animals which are now extinct. I know there is collateral evidence, but this proves nothing. Take, for instance, the extinct volcanoes of Auvergne. There it is said there are volcanoes of which there is no record of any activity within historic periods; in fact, we have evidence that they were much in the same state at the time of the Romans as they are now, and if they have changed so little from those times to the present day, the last outburst of the craters must date back into the most re­mote antiquity. Yet, we have an instance of human remains and ex­tinct animals buried under the ashes. And it happens, very fortu­nately for the argument, that Strabo and Pliny, writing of geography and natural history, mention nothing of the craters of Auvergne, and if they had been burning mountains then, such phenomena would hardly have escaped mention. But neither Strabo nor Pliny include Vesuvius in the list of active volcanoes, because at that time the crater was in a state of tranquility, and the interior was overgrown with wild vines. Vesuvius, however, became active subsequently, and so it may have happened here. So it did happen in the case of the volcanoes of the Vivarrais, a series of craters visible from the moun­tains of Auvergne, because I find that the author of an article on the Norman Conquest, in the Quarterly Review for October, 1844, cites two passages in proof of it. The first, Sidonius Appolinaris, writing in the fifth century after Christ, says, that in his time earthquakes demolished the walls of Vienne, when the mountains opened and vomited forth torrents of inflamed materials, and when the wild beasts, driven from the woods by fire and terror, retired into the towns, where they made great ravages. I draw your attention to the wild beasts mentioned, which I consider a significant and important fact, for, unless we concede the existence of some of the extinct ani­mals, I cannot conceive any others which would be likely to commit great ravages. Sidonius goes on to speak of the mountains being burned in ashes, showing that some very destructive eruptions must

page 22

have taken place at that time. Neither is he the only author. There is another passage, from the person to whom Sidonius's epistle was directed, in which immense fires, earthquakes, explosions, and fiery hail are spoken of. St. Gregory of Tours also speaks of a great earthquake which shook the Bay of Auvergne, in the sixth century. Now, from all these testimonies, it is very certain that volcanic tracts of country were in activity within very recent times, and so far from dating back into the most remote antiquity, nothing can prevent our seeing that these mountains tell very much against the calcula­tions of Sir Charles Lyell. But, it is said that, the evidence from the volcanoes is far from being all that is relied upon. Take, for instance, the changes which have occurred to the strata since the human remains were deposited in them. Some have been upheaved to a considerable height above the level of the sea. Places are shown, where rivers have cut down deep channels in their beds since the flint implements became untouched. Large valleys have been torn asunder, and, altogether, great changes have taken place in the configuration of the land. And, what are we to conclude from all this? Why, simply, these causes have been in operation, which are far from reconcileable with immense antiquity, as they manifest violent and sudden convulsions in nature which must have been accomplished in a very short space of time. For, you must know that, within a very recent period, a very great change has taken place in the opinions of geologists with regard to the manner in which changes are effected on the earth's surface. It used to be the fashion to refer everything to a great series of operations, such as we see going on around us at the present day. Thus, it was supposed that upheaval went on at a very slow rate, because nothing very rapid was observed now. Six inches in a cen­tury was thought very rapid, and every other change was explained in a similar way, because it was believed that we had no right to explain an effect by unknown causes, or attribute them to changes of which we saw no instance. But there were also very considerable difficulties in the way; because there were many things which could not be explained by anything we saw going on around us now. Granite, for instance, is a substance of whose origin we know nothing, and yet most of the mountain ranges of the world have been formed by the pushing up of masses of granite through the superincumbent strata, and all the experiences of naturalists, amid all the changes which have been recorded, nothing like to the push­ing up of a hill of granite has ever been observed. Other difficulties of a similar kind were found, which were all quite averse to the uniformitarian theory, as it is called. There are many rivers flowing through valleys, whose beds, were they many times larger, would be perfectly inadequate to have scooped out a valley one quarter the size. The valley of the Somme, where the flint implements are

page 23

found, is a case in point, and geologists have come to the conclusion that changes must have been more rapid in former times, and that causes have been in operation which we cannot explain by any facts now at our disposal. If this be the case, no argument in favour of antiquity can be founded upon the mere face of change.

Many operations, which in the present quiet state of the earth are inexplicable, probably have been due to causes not now in activity, which may have effected in hours what now take years to accom­plish. Upheaval is one of them. Sir Charles Lyell adduces in­stances out of number where upheaval has gone on so irregularly, that while some parts of the strata have been raised several feet, other portions have been quite still. Again, many eminent geologists are of opinion that the cold of which there is evidence during the glacial period could not have been due to any possible disposition of land or climate, as far as our present knowledge of the earth goes. So from all these facts and a great many more, which time alone prevents me from adducing, we may gather that the theory as to the slow rate of upheaval is any thing but clearly established.

I may add, also, that in one respect it is positively contradicted. Those who refer all changes to the earth's surface to the slow cooling of the centre are at variance with astronomers. They assume that the earth's crust has continued comparatively thin during the whole series of geological mutations, and this view is not in accordance with con­clusions derived from the precession of the equinoxes. Geologists are also at variance with natural philosophers on the same subject. Professor Tyndall, in his lecture on Heat, points out that in the hypothesis of a central nucleus of fused matter, the laws for the cooling of heated bodies do not correspond with the present state of the earth's surface.

But with this instance I must close my lecture. I am conscious that I have exceeded the limits of the time allotted me, but I trust I have not equally exceeded the limits of your patience. What I have said I believe has achieved the object I proposed to myseff. I did not wish to disprove or deny anything alleged as a new discovery, but only to show that the facts were quite open to two interpreta­tions, both, as far as mere inference goes, equally probable, but one more consonant with the traditions of the human race. No one has the hardihood to deny the value, the force, or the certainty of true science. We might as well deny our own existence. But we are most unphilosophical if we give to every conclusion of scientific men the deference and the weight which we give to truth. The latter is a harmonious whole, not one portion of which will be found to clash with another. The very fact that some modern inferences tend to clash with all that the human race has considered hitherto as unshaken truth, shows that there is something wrong somewhere. We can hardly think it is on

Page 24

our side when such an enormous amount of consistent history and tradition is opposed to mere conjecture. Let us then read our conclusions again, and see whether we can make them agree better, for it would be ill for the cause of truth that we should continue in error through reverence for a name. It will be a sad disappointment indeed if the magnificent structure we call the temple of knowledge, should owe its adornment to imagina­tion, should be less permanent than the dazzling splendor of a sunset cloud, and finally melt like a palace of snow.