AvGustT 20, 1897.] 
sionally discovered in this part of the 
globe. 
Like chemistry, mineralogy and petrology 
may be called to the assistance of archeol- 
ogy in determining the nature and source 
of the rocks of which ancient stone imple- 
ments are made; and, thanks to researches 
of the followers of those sciences, the old 
view that all such implements formed of 
jade and found in Europe must, of necessity, 
have been fashioned from material imported 
from Asia can no longer be maintained. In 
one respect the archeeologist differs in opin- 
ion from the mineralogist, namely, as to the 
propriety of chipping off fragments from 
perfect and highly finished specimens for 
the purpose of submitting them to micro- 
scopic examination. ‘ 
I have hitherto been speaking of the aid 
that other sciences can afford to archeology 
when dealing with questions that come al- 
most, if not quite, within the fringe of his- 
tory, and belong to times when the surface 
of our earth presented much the same con- 
figuration as regards the distribution of 
land and water, and hill and valley, as it 
does at present, and when, in all proba- 
bility, the climate was much the same as it 
now is. When, however, we come to dis- 
cuss that remote age in which we find the 
earliest traces that are at present known of 
man’s appearance upon earth the aid of 
geology and paleontology becomes abso- 
lutely imperative. 
The changes in the surface configuration 
and in the extent of the land, especially in 
a country like Britain, as well as the modi- 
fications of the fauna and flora since those 
days, have been such that the archeologist 
pure and simple is incompetent to deal with 
them, and he must either himself under- 
take the study of these other sciences or 
call experts in them to his assistance. The 
evidence that man had already appeared 
upon the earth is afforded by stone imple- 
ments wrought by his hands, and it falls 
SCIENCE. 
273 
strictly within the province of the archeol- 
ogist to judge whether given specimens 
were so wrought or not; it rests with the 
geologist to determine their stratigraphical 
or chronological position, while the paleon- 
tologist can pronounce upon the age and 
character of the associated fauna and flora. 
If left to himself the archeologist seems 
too prone to build up theories founded upon 
form alone, irrespective of geological condi- 
tions. The geologist, unaccustomed to 
archzeological details, may readily fail to see 
the difference between the results of the 
operations of nature and those of art, and 
may be liable to trace the effects of man’s 
handiwork in the chipping, bruising and 
wearing which in all ages result from natu- 
ral forces; but the united labors of the two, 
checked by those of the paleontologist, 
cannot do otherwise than lead towards 
sound conclusions. 
It will, perhaps, be expected of me that I 
should on the present occasion bring under 
review the state of our present knowledge 
with regard to the antiquity of man; and 
probably no fitter place could be found for 
the discussion of such a topic than the 
adopted home of my yenerated friend, the 
late Sir Daniel Wilson, who first introduced 
the word ‘prehistoric’ into the English lan- 
guage. 
Some among us may be able to call to 
mind the excitement not only among men 
of science, but among the general public, 
when, in 1859, the discoveries of M. Boucher 
de Perthes and Dr. Rigollot in the gravels 
of the valley of the Somme, at Abbeville and 
Amiens, were confirmed by the investiga- 
tions of the late Sir Joseph Prestwich, 
myself and others, and the co-existence of 
man with the extinct animals of the Qua- 
ternary fauna, such as the mammoth and 
woolly-haired rhinoceros, was first virtually 
established. It was atthe same time pointed 
out that these relics belonged to a far earlier 
date than the ordinary stone weapons found 
