50 
tionable facts, and facts which readily admit of being accounted for in harmony 
with Scripture. I am reminded, however, by the discussion itself that the 
question is not the broad one of man’s antiquity generally, but the validity 
of a branch of the evidence on which that antiquity is sought to be based. 
Clearly and fully to record my own views on that branch of the evidence, 
would require an essay. It stands so intimately connected with many other 
questions, that it can scarcely, with any satisfaction, be discussed separately. 
I may, without presumption, be permitted to say that my own views on the 
whole question, which I have long held, and which I have seen no reason to 
alter, are fully stated in my two last works, The Biblical Antiquity of 
Man , and The Noaic Deluge. 
With regard to the precise point in dispute, my opinion is, that although 
vast numbers of the so-called flakes, perhaps far the greater part of them, 
are mere natural productions, yet that many of what are called imple- 
ments, such, for example, as those exhibited by Mr. J. Evans, and those ob- 
tained by Col. Lane Fox, near Acton, are of human origin. But if their 
non-artificial origin could be proved, should we gain anything in the grand 
dispute itself. The beds from which the implements are obtained have also 
yielded animal bones — bones of creatures proved to have been contemporary 
with man — and hence, to disprove the validity of the implements would only 
remove a part of the evidence of antiquity.* No, the superstructure must 
embrace a much wider foundation than the one brought before the members 
of the Institute by this discussion. What is meant by the Drift ? This 
term is most indefinitely — and, I may add, confusedly — employed by writers 
and speakers on man’s antiquity. Very often it is made to include the 
boulder clay , as well as all of the other overlying deposits, except the most 
recent ones. The true Drift I regard as embracing all the deposits of brick- 
earth, gravel, and inundation mud — whether in valleys or caves — that are 
clearly subsequent to the glacial period. 
These form the human period , whether called Palaeolithic or Neolithic, but 
a period cut into two unequal but prolonged epochs by the Biblical Deluge, 
And to come to a safe and really philosophical conclusion on this all-im- 
antiquaries, they must avail themselves of American light for their guidance. 
Much of this light has already been thrown on this subject by my friend 
Professor Wilson, in his Prehistoric Man ; but one can scarcely open any 
European book on this subject, or glance at any of the numerous articles 
and papers on this fertile theme in scientific journals, without wishing that 
those who discuss prehistoric man in Europe, knew a little more of his 
analogue in America. The subject is a tempting one, but I must close this 
notice, already too long for the space I should devote to it, by remarking 
that the relations in America of the short-headed and long-headed races of 
men, are by no means dissimilar from those of the two similar races in 
Europe ; while it is also evident that some prehistoric skulls, supposed to 
be of vast antiquity, as, for instance, that of Engis, bear a very close resem- 
blance to those of the Algonquin and Iroquois Indians.” — [Ed.] 
* See note, page 40, No. 3. 
