( 546 ) [Oct., 
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF PRE-HISTORIC 
ARCH AOLOGY. 
Tue third meeting of this Congress was held at Norwich, simul- 
taneously with the Meetings of the British Association for the 
Advancement of Science. It was commenced on August 20th, by 
the President (Sir John Lubbock, Bart.) reading the opening 
address, which was chiefly remarkable for containing a brief reply 
to the articles in ‘Good Words’ by the Duke of Argyll, wherem 
His Grace endeavours to show that there is no proof whatever that 
such ages as the Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron, ever 
existed in the world, chiefly, it would seem, because archeologists 
cannot show that they were universal, as the same age which was 
an age of stone in one part of the world was an age of metal in 
another. This fact is perfectly true, and has always been admitted 
by Pre-historic Archeologists. Sir John asks, Would the Duke of 
Argyll object to the use of the term “ Christian Era,” because we 
have Heathens existing now as well as Christians? This is an 
unfortunate reply, and its fallacy will certainly be exposed by so 
rigorous a logician as the Duke of Argyll. We denominate this 
the “ Christian Era,” because it succeeded the birth of Christ, not 
because it is characterized by the prevalence of Christianity. The 
remainder of the address was a good popular exposition of the lead- 
ing facts and principles of Pre-historic Archeology. 
On the 21st (Friday), after a paper by E. B. Tylor, Esq., “On 
Pre-historic Races and Modern Savages,” a great part of the day 
was occupied with reading and discussing two papers “On Stone 
Circles,” &c.: the first, on those of Scotland, beng by J. Stuart, Esq.; 
and the second, on the Sarsden Stones, &c., of Berkshire, by 
A. L. Lewis, Esq. The former author inferred that stone circles 
were monuments of the dead, and the latter, that they were temples. 
The question of temples versus tombs produced an animated debate. 
Post-historic Archzologists may some day quarrel over this question 
applied to our churches. They will find sepulchral remains in 
most of them, but not in all, and other evidence of the same nature 
as that we possess about Stonehenge, Carnac, &c. The probability 
to our mind is that such places were always temples and sometimes 
tombs. ‘The other papers read this day were, “On Rock Sculp- 
tures,” by H. M. Westropp, Esq.; and “ On the Antiquities of the 
Pacific Islands ” (which are not at all ancient), by J. W. Lamprey, 
sq. 
On Saturday, Mr. Busk exhibited an interesting collection of 
stone implements from South Africa, some of which had received a 
