526 



NA TURE 



[Sept. 27, 1883 



was taken up very cordially by the Royal and Geological So- 

 cieties of London, a Committee was appointed by the latter 

 body, the exploration was placed under the superintendence of 

 Mr. (now Prof.) Prestwich and myself, and, being the only resi- 

 dent member of the Committee, the actual superintendence fell 

 of necessity to me. 



The following facts connected with this cavern were no doubt 

 influential in leading to the decision to have it explored : — 



1. It was a virgin cave which had been hermetically sealed 

 during an incalculably long period, the last previous event in its 

 history being the introduction of a reindeir antler, found at- 

 tached to the upper surface of the stalagmitic floor. It was 

 therefore free from the objection urged sometimes against Kent's 

 Cavern, that, having been known from time immemorial, and 

 up to 1825 always open to all comers, it had perhaps been ran- 

 sacked again and again. 



2. It was believed, and it proved, to be a comparatively very 

 small cavern, so that its complete exploration was not likely to 

 require a large expenditure of time or of money. 



It will be seen that the exploration was placed under circum- 

 stances much more likely to command attention than any of 

 those which had preceded it. It was to be carried on under the 

 auspices of the Royal and Geological Societies, by a Committee 

 consisting of Mr. S. H. Beckles, Mr. G. Busk, Rev. R. Everest, 

 Dr. H. Falconer, Mr. Godwin-Austen, Sir C. Lyell, Prof. 

 Owen, Dr. J. Percy, Mr. J. Prestwich, Prof, (now Sir A. C.) 

 Ramsay, and myself — all Fellows of the Geological Society, 

 and almost all of them of the Royal Society also. 



It was impossible not to feel, however, that the mode of ex- 

 ploration must be such as would not merely satisfy those actually 

 engaged in the work, but such as would command for the results 

 which might be obtained the acceptance of the scientific world 

 generally. Hence I resolved to have nothing whatever to do 

 with "trial pits" here and there, or with shafts to be sunk in 

 selected places ; but, first, to examine and remove the stalagmite 

 floor; then the entire bed immediately below (if not of incon- 

 venient depth) horizontally throughout the entire length of the 

 cavern, or so far as practicable ; this accomplished, to proceed 

 in like manner with the next lower bed ; and so on until all the 

 deposits had been removed. 



This method, uniformly followed, was preferable to any 

 other, because it would reveal the general stratigraphi.-al order 

 . of the deposits, with the am mnt and direction of such "dip" 

 as they might have, as well as any variations in the thickness of 

 the beds ; it would afford the only chance of securing all the 

 fossils, and of thus ascertaining, not only the different kinds of 

 animals represented in the cave, but also the ratios which the 

 numbers of individuals of the various species bore to one 

 another, as well as all peculiar or noteworthy collocations ; it 

 would disclose the extent, character, and general features of the 

 cavern itself ; it was undoubtedly the least expensive mode of 

 exploration ; and it would render it almost impossible to refsr 

 bones or indicalions of human existence to wrong beds, depths, 

 or associations. 



The work was begun in July, 1858, and closed at the end of 

 twelve months, when the cavern had practically been completely 

 emptied ; an official report was printed in the Philosophical 

 Transactions for 1S73, and all the specimens have been handed 

 over to the British Museum. 



The paper on the subject mentioned at the beginning of this 

 address was read in September, 1858, during the meeting of the 

 Association at Leeds, when I had the pleasure of stating that 

 eight flint tools had already been found in various parts of the 

 cavern, all of them ino-culating with bones of mammalia, at 

 depths varying from nine to forty-two inches in the cave-earth, 

 on which lay a sheet of stalagmite from three to ei^ht inches 

 thick, and having within it and on it relics of lion, hyaena, bear, 

 mammoth, rhinoceros, and reindeer. 



It soon became obvious that the geological apathy previously 

 spoken of had been rather apparent than real. In fact, geolo- 

 gists were found to have been not so much disinclined to enter- 

 tain the question of human antiquity as to doubt the trustworthi- 

 ness of the evidence which had previously been offered to them 

 on the subject. It was felt, moreover, that the Brixham evidence 

 made it worth while, and indeed a duty, to re-examine that from 

 Kent's Cavern, as well as that said to have been met with in 

 river deposits in the valley of the Somme and elsewhere. 



The first fruits, I believe, of this awakening was a paper by 

 Mr. Prestwich, read to the Royal Society, May 26, 1859, on 

 the occurrence of flint implements, associated with the remains 

 of animals of extinct species in beds of a late geological period, 



in France at Amiens and Abbeville, and in England at Hoxne 

 (Phil. Trans, for i860, pp. 277-317). This paper contains ex- 

 plicit evidence that Brixham Cavern had had no small share in 

 disponing its author to undertake the investigation, which added 

 to his own great reputation and rescued M. Boucher de Perthes 

 from undeserved neglect. " It was not," says Mr. Prestwich, 

 " until I had myself witnessed the conditions under which these 

 flint implements had been found at Brixham, that I became fully 

 impressed with :he validity of the doubts thrown upon the pre- 

 viously prevailing opiuions with respect to such remains in 

 caves" (op. ci'. p. 280). 



Sir C. Lyell, too, in his address to the Geological Section of 

 the British Association, at Aberdeen, in September, 1859, said, 

 " The facts recently brought to light during the systematic in- 

 vestigation, as reported on by Dr. Falconer, of the Brixham 

 Cave, must, I think, have prepared you to admit that scepticism 

 in regard to the cave evidence in favour of the antiquity of man 

 had previously been pushed to an extreme " (Report Brit. Assoc. 

 1859, Trans. Sects, p. 93). 



It is probably unnecessary to quote further to show how very 

 large a share the exploration at Brixham had in impressing the 

 scientific world generally with the value and importance of the 

 geological evidence of man's antiquity. That impression, begun 

 as we have seen in 1858, has not only lasted to the present day, 

 but has probably not yet culminated. It has produced numerous 

 volumes, crowds of papers, countless articles in reviews and 

 magazines, in various countries ; and, perhaps in order to show 

 h ow very popular the subject became almost immediately, it is 

 only necessary to state that Sir C. Lyell's great work on the 

 "Antiquity of Man" was publi-hed in February, 1863; the 

 second edition appeared in the following April, and the third 

 followed in the succeeding November — three editions of a bulky 

 scientific work in less than ten months ! A fourth edition was 

 published in May, 1873. 



Few, it may be presumed, can now doubt that those who 

 before 1858 believed that our fathers had under-estimated human 

 antiquity, and fought for their belief, have at length obtained a 

 victory. Nevertheless, every anthropologist has doubtless from 

 time to time 



" Heard the distant and random gun 

 That the foe was sullenly firing." 



The "foe," to speak metaphorically, seems to consist of very 

 irregular forces, occasionally unfair but never dangerous, some- 

 times very amusing, and frequently but badly armed or without 

 any real armour. The Spartan law which fined a citizen heavily 

 for going into battle unarmed was probably a very wise one. 



For example, and dropping a metaphor, a pamphlet published 

 in 1877 contains the following passage: — "With regard to all 

 these suppo ed flint implements and spear- and arrow-heads found 

 in various places, it may be well to mention here the frank con- 

 fession of Dr. Carpenter. He has told us from the presidential 

 chair of the Royal Academy that ' No logical proof can be 

 adduced that the peculiar shapes of these flints were given them 

 by human hands'" (see 'Is the Book Wrong? A Question for 

 Sceptics,' by Hely H. A. Smith, p. 26). The words ascribed 

 to Dr. Carpenter are put within inverted commas, and are the 

 whole of the quotation from him. I was a good deal mystified 

 on first reading them, for while it seemed likely that the presi- 

 dent spoken of was the well known member of this Association 

 — Dr. W. B. Carpenter — it was difficult to account for his being 

 in the presidential chair of the Royal Academy, and not easy to 

 understand what the Royal Academy had to do with flint imple- 

 ments. A little search, however, showed that the address which 

 Dr. W. B. Carpenter delivered in 1872 from the presidential 

 chair of, not the Royal Academy, but the British Association, 

 contained the actual words quoted, followed immediately by 

 others which the author of the pamphlet found it inconvenient 

 to include in his quotation. Dr. Carpenter, speaking of •• com- 

 mon sense," referred, by way of illu t.ation, to the " flint imple- 

 ments " of the Abbeville and Amiens gravel beds, and remarked, 

 "No logical proof can be adduced that the peculiar shapes of 

 these flints \\ ere given to them by human bands ; but does any 

 unprejudiced person now doubt it?" (Report Brit. Assoc. 1872, 

 p. Ixxv.). Dr. Carpenter, after some further remarks on the " flint 

 implements," concluded his paragraph respecting them with the 

 following words : — " Thus what was in the first instance a matter 

 of discussion, has now become one of those 'self-evident' pro 

 positions which claim the unhesitating assent of all whose 

 opinion on the subject is entitled to the lea-t weight." 



It cannot be doubted that, taken in its entirety, that is to say, 

 taken as every lover of truth and fairness should and would take 



