REVIEWS — INDIGENOUS RACES OP THE EARTH. 211 



department, with its fossil human remains -.—fossil and humatile, to 

 use a new word coined to designate that which has been accidentally- 

 deposited in the earth, in contradistinction either to the true fossil, 

 or to purposed sepulture. Here at first sight then, is a startling 

 array of facts : — the Gruadaloupe skeletons ; the cave remains, found 

 along with the ursus spelceus, extinct rhinoceros, elephant, &c, at 

 Gard, Torbay, &c. ; the Floridian human jaws and foot, "embedded 

 in a conglomerate at least 10,000 years old ;" and finally, the 

 celebrated os innominatum, found near Natchez, on the Mississippi, 

 below the skeleton of a megalonyx and other extinct quadrupeds. 

 These and other instances quoted more extensively, and we may add 

 more confidently, in the Types of Mankind, than in this later 

 work, would seem at first sight to make up for any dubiety arising 

 from the disagreement among Egyptian chronologers. But when 

 the honest inquirer turns here for guidance to the authorities in 

 science, Mantell tells him the Gruadaloupe skeletons are quite modern ; 

 Sedgwick, Buckland, and Hugh Miller, are agreed as to the 

 recentness of the human cave bones ; Lyell gives the weight of his 

 testimony against any argument based on the Natchez os innominatum ; 

 and in fine, the geological argument for palaeozoic human remains is 

 sought for in vain in the accredited text books of geological science. 

 The like argument applies to the Archaeological evidence. The 

 flint implements, pottery, &c, found in British caves, where positive 

 evidences of sepulture entirely remove them from being classed 

 as contemporaneous with the embedded remains of any but the most 

 recent extinct mammals, have even been found accompanied with 

 specimens of art — Eoman and other — belonging to the Christian era ; 

 and as to M. Boucher de Perthes': ,{ Antiquites Celtiques et 

 Antediluviennes,'" largely built upon in the Types of Man7cind,-pp. 353- 

 372, and here again referred to, with further corroboration from later 

 investigations of Dr. Kigollot : we can only say if the " antediluvian 

 remains of art," of the latter explorer, are no better than those of the 

 former, they will carry even less conviction to the minds o 

 Archaeologists, than the quoted examples of" fossil human remains" 

 appear to have done to Geologists. "We got hold of M. Boucher de 

 Perthes' work years ago, when engaged in investigations which 

 would have made us gladly welcome his conclusions, had his premises 

 been even plausible ; and had he not accompanied his enthusiastic 

 descriptions with his honest matter-of-fact illustrations, we should 

 have been sorely puzzled to reject his ^figures et symlols de la 

 periode antediluvienne" his " haches celtique, instrumens en pierre" 



