1866. | The Origin and Antiquity of Man. 57 
investigates,” we ¢annot but think that he strains the principle to the 
utmost by calling mythology a “department of human knowledge.” 
But accepting the evidence and the conclusion, what follows? Dr. 
Falconer nearly thirty years ago stated as his opinion “that the 
Colossochelys may have lived down to the human period, and 
Lecome extinct since ;” and he now says that this view 1s “ recipro- 
cal” with the one “that man had lived back to be a contemporary 
of the Tortoise, now proved to have been Miocene.” He also urges 
“that the form of expression selected on the occasion was that 
~ which was least calculated to provoke ridicule, or to shock the 
strong prejudices on the subject which were then dominant among 
educated men.” We should not have considered Dr. Falconer so 
susceptible of ridicule, so careful of offending popular prejudices, or 
so little amenable to the necessity of a scientific man saying and 
writing exactly what he means, had it not been for the publication 
of this sentence. His object in thus investing his writings with a 
reputation for ambiguity is simply to make out a good case in proof 
of his assertion that nearly thirty years ago Captain Cautley and 
himself were “occupied with the question of the remote antiquity 
of man in India.” We are quite willing to believe that this was 
the case, for it is still fresh in our remembrance that it was Dr. 
Falconer, who drew the attention of Mr. Prestwich, Mr. Evans, and 
others, to the long-neglected specimens and opinions of M. Boucher 
de Perthes, and obtained for them the fair and careful consideration 
that resulted in establishing the views so long held by the distin- 
guished Abbeville antiquary. 
From the foregoing quotations, however, it appears certain that 
the late Dr. Falconer was of opinion that the advent of man may 
have taken place at so remote a period as the Miocene, though 
“»artly from considerations of a different order.” To these con- 
siderations we shall presently refer ; but before doing so we must 
ascertain what support is yielded to his view by the discoveries 
detailed in Mr. Foote’s pamphlet. 
Very little is known of the geological age of the implement- 
bearing formations of Madras and North Arcot; but in the districts 
of Trichinopoly and South Arcot deposits supposed to be identical 
with them are found resting unconformably on Cretaceous strata, 
and overlain by the alluvium of certain rivers. All the implements, 
several hundreds of which have been found, are made of quartzite, 
which substance, Mr. Foote tells us, is the best substitute for flint in 
the Madras district. In form these implements correspond with many 
of those found in the valley-gravels of France and England; but, as 
will be seen by a comparison of Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 7, with Figs. 2, 4, 
6, and 8 in the Plate, the Indian specimens are much less elaborate. 
Without an examination of a large number of specimens it would 
not be safe to decide whether this difference is owing to the compa- 
