130 
and Western Europe, as well as in Italy and Spain, but never in the more 
northerly parts of Europe, that is to say in Denmark, Scotland, Sweden, or 
Norway, or beyond a certain line in the north of England. 
It will not affect my argument whether we call these primitive cave-men 
palaeolithic or neolithic ; we never find their traces in the North of Europe. 
We find neither the implements which characterise the lower beds of the 
caves of Perigord, or Belgium, or England, nor the bones of the extinct ani- 
mals — I mean the mammoth, the rhinoceros, the cave-bear, the cave-hyena, 
the musk-ox, &c. Why is this ? I must give the same reason that I gave in 
the other case — both man and brute were kept out by the ice. The climate 
in the North did not permit the cave-men of the Mammoth — or, if it is pre- 
ferred, the Reindeer — epoch to advance. The ice still lingered in Denmark 
and Scotland. When did it retire ? It retired, as is evidenced by the most 
ancient relics found in these countries, in the Polished Stone Age. And we 
arrive at precisely the same conclusion which we reached before. 
In the caves of the so-called Palaeolithic Age no polished stone implements 
are ever found, and as archaeologists use the terms neolithic and polished- 
buted fragments from thin seams of brown and striped jaspers, and black, 
yellowish, and grey flints, and not unfrequently nodules of chalcedony and 
agate. Some of the plains are thickly strewn with these splintered stones. 
Some of these specimens Prof. Leidy pronounces to be unquestionably 
“ rude implements of art while, as he remarks, “ the vast numbers of similar 
stones to be found on the plains and buttes near Fort Bridger, and their 
gradation to undoubted accidental fragments with which they are mingled, 
alone renders it improbable that they should be considered as such.” The 
learned professor figures a number of the specimens, which bear a strong re- 
semblance to the palaeolithic types. 
It is very evident from these facts that the great bulk of these fractured 
stones — flint, chert, quartzite, argillite, jasper (all with the exception of 
argillite, varying forms of quartz, or pure silica) — are of non-artificial origin, 
and the presumption, to say the least, is very strong that all are so. If 
nature can produce the chippings (as is unquestionable) which appear on the 
flint and argillite nodules, where is the process to stop ? If she can produce 
a specimen that is so much like the so-called artificial specimen that it can 
hardly be distinguished from it, why may she not have originated both 
specimens ? 
I will add only one other remark. It is well known that flints, believed 
by many archaeologists from their artificial appearance to have been shaped 
by the hand of man, have been found in Pliocene and Miocene deposits, as, 
for example, in the Pliocene strata of the valley of the Tiber, and in the 
Miocene strata near Pontlevoy, in France. Now these flints, if their strati- 
graphical position is correctly described, are undoubtedly non-artificial, and 
if so, the quaternary flints of the Drift gravels are also probably non- 
artificial. 
I present these considerations as an argument going to show that Mr. 
Callard is correct in his views on this point, but I doubt if they will appear 
conclusive to all minds ; they are certainly not so regarded by archmologists 
like Mr. Evans and Mr. Boyd Dawkins, and for the present we must be 
content to await additional light on the subject. They open up a most 
interesting line of investigation, which I trust will be followed up by such 
competent observers ;is Mr. Callard. 
