and the long period of time supposed to have intervened between the depo- 
sition of these beds, was shown by myself in 1865 to be founded on imper- 
fect observations, and untenable and in 1868 Mr. Alfred Tylor, F.G.S., in 
an exhaustive paper on the Amiens Gravel, f has so completely disproved the 
distinction, that this corps of the defending army has been ordered to the 
rear. 
Thus the outworks are slowly giving way before more detailed investiga- 
tion, but the citadel on the Somme remains in full strength where the vigi- 
lant sentries keep watch and ward. With this fortress Palaeolithic man 
stands or falls. If the “ tools ” of the Somme type are of human workman- 
ship, then this fortress is placed on an imperishable basis ; but if the assumed 
evidence of design on the flints will not bear the test of honest criticism 
founded on diligent research, then this citadel on the Somme must be 
regarded as an imitation ruin, with which modern landowners fancifully 
decorate their parks, and is distinguished by the name of a “ Folly.” 
The simple issue to be tried is, as Sir John Lubbock clearly puts it, “ Are 
the so-called flint implements of human workmanship ? ” and this proposition, 
which Sir John undertakes to prove ( Pre-Historic Times, p. 276), he 
does not support by a tittle of evidence, but he does prove convincingly that 
the flints are found in undisturbed gravel ; that they have marks of age on 
their surfaces by which the genuine implements can be known from forgeries ; 
and then Sir John assumes that he has proved his case, and says, “ On this 
point, therefore, no evidence could be more conclusive.” 
This is a mistake of the question. It is proved that the flint is found deep 
in the gravel-beds, which no one who has inspected the beds can doubt ; but 
it is not proved that the flint has been formed into an implement by man. 
The zeal of the antiquary has in this argument clouded the judgment of the 
scholar. It must also be stated that the accomplished geologist, Sir 0. 
Lyell, has fallen into the same argumentative mistake ; he says, “ As much 
doubt has been cast on the question whether the so-called flint hatchets have 
really been shaped by the hands of man, it will be desirable to begin by 
satisfying the reader’s mind on that point.” (Ant. of Man, 1st ed., p. 112.) 
But in the following pages this vital point is not discussed, and no evidence 
whatever in reference to it is given ; “ the genuineness of the implement ” 
is inferred from the “ vitreous gloss,” the dendritic markings which only 
indicate age are figured, and the subject is closed by a quotation from Pro- 
fessor Bamsay, who had written : “ For more than twenty years, like others 
of my craft, I have daily handled stones, whether fashioned by nature or art ; 
and the flint hatchets of Amiens and Abbeville seem to me as clearly works 
of art as any Sheffield whittle.” 
I will put quotation against quotation. “ Wherever,” says Hallam, “ obse- 
quious reverence is substituted for bold inquiry, truth, if she is not already 
* Flint Implements from Drift not Authentic, p. 31. 
f Journal of Geological Soc., vol. xxiv. p. 103. 
