35 
head. I also, from the same gravels, obtained this specimen [another 
specimen shown], which bears not the faintest resemblance to spear-liead, 
hatchet, or to any other implement, but you will observe that the surface is 
covered with the minute chipping and flaking, that, had it occurred on the 
other specimen with a spear-head outline, it would certainly have been 
received as one of the implements fashioned by the hands of Palaeolithic man. 
I will now show you a flint which I obtained in the neighbourhood of Marl- 
borough Downs [specimen exhibited] ; it has not yet been out of its matrix, 
therefore could not have received its form from the hand of man ; it is incased 
in silicious sandstone, and it has so happened that the blow given to the 
stone by the mason has split the flint longitudinally, which affords a good 
opportunity of examining its natural form, and if you compare it with the 
accepted implement from the gravel-bed of Moulin Quignon, you will observe 
that both in size and shape they are identical ; in addition to which, the 
exposed part of the flint is covered with facets. As there is no collateral 
evidence whatever to support the claim of these chipped flints being the 
work of man, the evidence of their being such resting exclusively upon their 
form and chipping, and seeing that nature does produce similar forms, which 
by natural causes can get similarly chipped, I think we may be justified in 
some hesitation in accepting these flints, however remarkable they may 
appear, as the workmanship of Paleolithic man. To say the least, they 
appear too doubtful to be made the basis to support the theory of man’s 
great antiquity.* 
* The greater or lesser antiquity of the earth in no respect affects the 
question of the antiquity of man. No scientific man has thought of placing 
man farther back than the Miocene period, and but few would claim for man 
a greater antiquity than that of the Gravel Drift. The reasons which would 
lead to claiming a great antiquity for the former are totally different to those 
that are adduced for the antiquity of the latter. — (T. K. C.) 
With respect to certain well-known theories requiring vast epochs for 
geological changes. In a work just published, Recent Researches in Physical 
Science, Professor P. G. Tait says that the Uniformitarian theories of geologists 
are “ totally inconsistent with modern physical knowledge as to the dissipa- 
tion of energy ” ; he then speaks of “ the Law of the Dissipation of Energy, 
discovered by Sir W. Thomson,” and remarks, “ It enables us distinctly 
to say, that the present order of things has not been evolved through 
infinite past time by the agency of laws now at work, but must have 
had a distinct beginning — a state beyond which we are totally unable 
to penetrate, a state which must have been produced by other than the 
now (visibly) acting causes.” And, arguing from our present knowledge 
of radiation, against the claims of “Lyell and others, especially of 
Darwin, who tell us that even for a comparatively brief portion of 
recent geological history three hundred millions of years will not suffice,” 
Professor Tait quotes Sir W. Thomson’s three lines of argument, and 
urges, “ Ten million years is the utmost we can give to geologists for their 
speculations as to the history even of the lowest orders of fossils ’ and 
“ for all the changes that have taken place on the earth’s surface since 
vegetable life of the lowest known form was capable of existing there.” 
Of course, it remains to be seen how far future researches may induce 
others to modify the above statements (vol. x. p. ii.). — Ed. 
d 2 
