134 Notes and Comments. 



GLACIAL AGE NOT PROVEN. 



In the Geological Magazine Mr. G. Slater, F.G.S., carefully 

 reviews the geological evidence, and concludes that the skeleton 

 is ' of doubtful age.' The general section in the side of the 

 pit where the remains were discovered ' is extremely un- 

 satisfactory.' One report by the persons who excavated the 

 skeleton says ' the section of decalcified boulder clay ' occurred 

 underneath the bones, and in another part of the same report 

 by the same gentlemen, it is stated that ' the bones were 

 lying partly embedded in glacial sand and partly in decalcified 

 clay.' The latter is confirmed by the bones themselves, and in 

 view of the different origins of stratified sand and boulder clay, 

 it is difficult to see how the skeleton should be partly embedded 

 in each, if contemporaneous with either the one or the other. 



A CAST OF THE SKULL. 



Those in favour of the glacial age of the remains attach 

 much importance to the fact that a complete cast of the inside 

 of the skull was found, of the same material as the surrounding 

 clay. It is even considered that ' the clay was in a semi-fluid 

 state at or since the time the remains were embedded in it.' 

 Those who have had any experience in digging in graveyards, 

 whether they be comparatively modern, or of Saxon, Roman or 

 Neolithic age, know quite well that it is by no means an un- 

 common occurrence for a skull to be tightly packed with soil 

 or other material, which has been drawn in by percolating 

 water, worms, etc. And what more natural than it should be 

 the same as the surrounding soil ? It would indeed be strange 

 if this were not so. As regards the bones themselves, these 

 bore no signs of great antiquity, either in their shape or sub- 

 stance. They were not at all mineralised ; in fact were extremely 

 light. In view of all the circumstances, therefore, it seems clear 

 that a pre-boulder-clay man has still to be found in Britain. 



THE DIVINING ROD. 



The United States Geological Survey, which has issued so 

 many valuable memoirs bearing upon different aspects of water, 

 supply, has recently published a paper dealing with the question 

 of the utility of the divining rod for finding water. It is stated 

 that ' the uselessness of the divining rod is indicated by the 

 fact that it may be worked at will by the operator, that he 

 fails to detect strong water-current in tunnels and other 

 channels that afford no surface indications of water, and that 

 his locations in limestone regions where water flows in .well 

 defined channels are no more successful than those dependent 

 on mere guesses. In fact, its operators are successful only in 

 i-egions in which ground water occurs in a definite sheet in 

 porous material or in more or less clayey deposits . . . No appli- 

 ance has yet been devised that will detect water in places where 

 plain commonsense will not show its presence just as well.' 



Naturalist 



