89 
remains, and the dismembered and disorderly state in which 
they are almost always found. The encroaching flood might 
drive many animals of different kinds to the same spot, a 
common calamity producing strange companionship, and after 
the waters had overwhelmed them, and exposure to the elements 
had decayed the soft parts of the carcasses, the bones might be 
carried by the currents of the retiring deluge along river- 
channels into the sea, or into any receptacles, such as caves, 
that might be suitably situated for receiving them. Lyell 
states that “from one fissure, called Bosco’s Den, no less than 
one thousand antlers of the reindeer were extracted,” and it 
was estimated that “ several hundred more still remained in 
tlm bone-earth of the same rent.” “Among the other bones, 
which were not numerous, were those of the cave-bear, wolf, 
fox, ox, stag, and field-mouse.” ( Antiq . of Man, p. 110.) It 
would seem that in this instance the collection of animals over- 
whelmed by the flood consisted principally of a herd of reindeer. 
The supposition which has been made that the animals 
whose bones are found in caves were brought there by hyaenas 
is wholly untenable, considering the numoer, size, and variety 
of the remains, and that the bones of hyaenas themselves are 
mixed up indiscriminately with the rest. It is true, however, 
that subsequently to the palaeolithic age the caves were invaded 
and their contents disturbed by hyaenas, the bones having 
evidently been gnawed and broken by these animals for the 
sake of food, and in some instances outside the cave. (See 
Lubbock, Pre-hist one Times, p. 21.) The bones appear also 
to have been cut and broken by aboriginal hunters of the 
neolithic period, indications having been found that the caves 
were resorted to in that age both for habitation and for burial. 
Many other instances of the explanation of geological facts 
by tbe proposed dynamical theory might be adduced in con- 
firmation of its truth. These will suffice for the inferences I 
propose to draw finally relative to the explanation on the 
principles of physical science of the Biblical account of 
the Deluge. At present I shall only remark that these 
theoretical explanations do not agree with those of geologists 
who have treated the same questions deductively, chiefly in 
respect to the effects of long periods of glacier-action, and of 
erosion by seas and rivers, and inferences thereon depending as 
to the antiquity of man. The divergence of the explanations 
evidently arises from the comprehension by the theory, within a 
brief space of time, of violent agencies and their results, whilst 
the other view attributes results to slow action extending over 
unlimited ages. There are, however, certain points of agree- 
