26 8ir IT. H. Hoivorth — Antiquity of Man. 



leur remplissage. . . . J'ose garantie qu'ancune de ces pieces. 

 n'a ete introduite apres coup. ... Si enfin, comme en Allemagne 

 et en France, plusieurs de ces cavernes eussent ete connues depuis 

 longtemps, et eussent servis k Tepoque du moyen age, sort de 

 refuge ou de cimetiere, certes nous aurions eu tort d'attacher la 

 moindre importance aux debris que nous avons trouves ; mais nous 

 repetons que, tout ce que nous avons dit sur les ossemens humains, 

 est exact et sans replique. Le temps seul, an reste, decidera jusqu'a 

 quel point nous avons eu raison de nous exprimer d'une maniere 

 aussi categorique, et aucun geologue eclaire ne voudrait soutenir 

 aujourd'hui que I'homme n'existait point k I'epoque ou nos cavernes 

 ont ete comblees du limon et des fossiles qu'elles recelent." This 

 is plain and definite, and it is the view now held everywhere. 

 Unfortunately his own generation were deaf to Schmerling's appeals. 



In the supplementary notes to his Bridgewater treatise, published 

 in 1837, Buckland tells us that in September, 1835, he had seen the 

 extensive collection of fossil bones made by M. Schmerling in the 

 caverns of the neighbourhood of Liege. He says : — " The human 

 bones found in these caves are in a state of less decay than those of 

 the extinct species of beasts ; they are accompanied by rude flint 

 knives and other instruments of flint and bone, and are probably 

 derived from uncivilized tribes that inhabited the caves. Some of 

 the human bones may also be the remains of individuals who, in 

 more recent times, have been buried in such convenient repositories. 

 M. Schmerling, in his 'Eecherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles des 

 Cavernes de Liege,' expresses his opinion that these human bones 

 are coeval with those of the quadrupeds, of extinct species, found with 

 them ; an opinion from which the author, after a careful examination 

 of M. Schmerling's collection, entirely dissents." (Op. cit., p. 602.) 



In the third edition of his " Principles of Geology," Lyell merely 

 mentions Schmerling's discoveries and the latter's claim that he had 

 found human remains with those of extinct animals, but expresses no 

 opinion on them. This was after he had paid a visit to Schmerling^ 

 in 1833. Lyell confesses that he expressed incredulity to his host 

 about the alleged antiquity of the fossil bones in his "Antiquity 

 of Man " ; he frankly avows that in the third and subsequent 

 editions of his famous "Principles" he had failed to give Schmerling's 

 discoveries the weight to which they were entitled, and adds — " He 

 [i.e. Schmerling] had accumulated ample evidence to prove that man 

 had been introduced into the earth at an earlier period than geologists 

 were then willing to believe," and he goes on to excuse and apologize, 

 like the brave honest person he was, for what he had done. The 

 words are worth quoting. " To have undertaken," he says, " in 1832, 

 with a view of testing its truth [i.e. the truth of the discovery], to 

 follow the Belgian philosopher through every stage of his observations 

 and proofs, would have been no easy task even for one well skilled 

 in geology and osteology. To be let down, as Schmerling was day 

 after day, by a rope tied to a tree, so as to slide to the first opening 

 of the Engis cave, where the best preserved human skulls were 

 found ; and, after thus gaining access to the first subterranean 



