208 
THE GEOLOGIST. 
posit above, abouudiDg in Cyclas, opercula of Bithynia ?, and 
traces of otlier Planorbis-like shells, very small flint-pebbles 
and occasional peaty layers * 4 
Total 93 
COPvEESPOXDENCE. 
Age of Prehistoric Man. 
Sir, — In Professor King's valuable paper on the " Glacial and Post- 
glacial Deposits," in the ' Geologist ' of last month, the learned author of 
this most interesting paper says: " The genus Homo belongs to both the 
glacial and post-glacial period ; it was represented as early as the close of 
the subaqueous epoch, or the bejj^inning of the second subaerial division of 
the glacial period, by a low form or extinct species, a view strongly 
countenanced by the Neanderthal skeleton, as well as the rudely chipped 
flint-implements occurring in the elephant-gravels of Amiens, Hoxne, and 
other places. Probably a higher iy^e existed at the same time, as indicated 
by the skulls found in the Engis caves near Liege." 
I must venture to express an opinion that the theory which assigns the 
Engis and iS"eanderthal skeletons to any particular division of the glacial 
period is scarcely warranted by the facts before us. Without wishing to 
throw any doubt on the demonstrated antiquity of the Engis skull, of which 
the age is fully proven, in the words of Huxley, to carry us back to the 
*' further side of the vague biological limit which separates the present 
geological epoch from that which immediately preceded it," I would wish 
to ask what is the geological or paleeontological proof of the following 
propositions : — 
1. That the IVeanderthal skeleton was probably coseval with the remains 
from the Liege caverns. 
2. That it T\as coasval with the "high-level" flint-implement gravels of 
the Somme valley or of Hoxne. 
3. That the species of man to which it belonged is extinct, i. e. different 
from a race having the same general cranial character as some existing 
Australians. 
Sir Charles Lyell, in his ' Antiquity of Man,' remarks justly that the 
Neanderthal skull has given rise to surprise "because, having no 
such decided claims to antiquity [as the skull from Engis], it departs 
so widely from the normal standard of humanity;" and concludes his 
remarks on the evidences thus: "If we conceive the [jN eanderthal] 
cranium to be very ancient, it exemplifies a less advanced stage of pro- 
gressive development and improvement. If it be a comparatively modern 
race, owing its peculiarities of conformation to degeneracy, it is an illus- 
tration of what the botanists have called ' atavism,' or the tendency 
of varieties to revert to an ancestral type, which type, in proportion to its 
antiquity, would be of lower grade." 
The fact cannot be too prominently brought before us, and must again 
be borne in mind, that no flint-imi^lements or any other works of art were 
found in the Neanderthal cave, and that the tusk of bear which was found 
* Page 89. 
t Page 92. 
