229 
remains, whilst there was but H inch of stalagmite above 
them. 
This would be quite a new lesson in Palaeontology, and would 
lead us to ask the question whether it is the antiquity of man 
or the antiquity of mammoth we expect to prove by their 
contemporaneity. 
And, secondly, it would reverse all our ideas about progres- 
sion ; for in the black mould above the stalagmite was found a 
bone needle, and the man who made that needle must, according 
to the evidence, have lived about 2,000 years back ; but in the 
black band beneath the stalagmite there was found another 
bone needle ; and if we allow the scale of ^ of an inch in 
250 years to be applied, it would place the artisan who made 
the latter needle 87,000 years before the one who made the 
former, — long enough, one would say, to perfect the art of 
needle-making ; but it is very disappointing to have to quote 
Mr. Pengelly’s words, for he says of the modern needle, that it 
is “ by no means so elegantly designed or so highly finished 
as that just described,”* — that is, the ancient needle. Eighty- 
seven thousand years, then, show no progress in needle-making, 
but the opposite. 
But what say the advanced anthropologists to the 9,750 years 
for the age of the extinct mammalia ? Whilst I have given 
my reasons for not accepting so long a period, there is no 
observed case of stalagmitic accretion that will make it longer. 
We have not to enter upon the question of how long cave-bear, 
cave-hyaena, mammoth, and Rhinoceros tichorinus have existed, 
the question that we have to answer is, At what period did they 
become extinct ? Was it 200,000 years back? The British 
caverns answer emphatically, No, nor 10,000 years back. The 
extreme basis of calculation, stretched beyond all probability, 
refuses to reach beyond 9,750 years, whilst all the other cavern 
evidence points to less than half that time ; and, as a conse- 
quence, the conclusion is inevitable, that the contemporaneity 
of man with the extinct mammalia, as evidenced by British 
cavern-exploration, lends no countenance to the doctrine of 
Man’s Antiquity. 
The Chairman. — I have now to return the thanks of this meeting to 
Mr. Callarcl for his extremely interesting, logical and well-expressed paper ; 
and in so doing, I am sure all will desire that I should include Mr. 
Gorman, who, on account of the author’s indisposition, has read the latter 
portion of the paper. I think Mr. Callard will acknowledge that Mr. 
* Fifth Report, read at Section C, British Association, Exeter, August 20, 
1869, p. 4. 
R 2 
