mentioned in two or three instances in the book of Job * and in the Song of 
David when victorious over his enemies, It may be necessary to mention 
that the words are all cognate, and that the rendering steel is only warranted 
as required by the sense. Brass is in almost all cases an unwarranted trans- 
lation. The name seems to be Shemitic, and to be derived from a root 
signifying to shine. It is, therefore, probable that the use of the word was 
not in any age carefully restricted by the Hebrews. Bronze belongs to the 
later period, and may perhaps then be included under the same name. 
(J.) 
W. Boyd Dawkins, F.R.S., in his Cave-hunting, arrives at the conclusion 
that there is no evidence that the Palaeolithic people were inferior in capacity 
to many of the lower races of the present time, or more closely linked to the 
lower animals. . . . The historian commences his labours with the high 
civilization of Assyria and Egypt, and can merely guess at the steps by 
which it was achieved ; the palaeontologist meets with the traces of man in 
the pleistocene strata, and he too can merely guess at the antecedent steps 
by which man arrived even at that culture which is implied by the imple- 
ments. . . . Neither has contributed anything towards the solution of the 
problem of his origin. 
The Chairman. — I am sure I may offer the thanks of the Society to 
Mr. Howard for his interesting paper, which contains so much archaeological 
knowledge. It is now open for those present to offer remarks upon it. 
Dr. H. Coleman. — Looking at this paper from the point of view of a 
logician and metaphysican, rather than from that of a physicist, I cannot 
agree with it. I agree most cordially with all the paragraphs into which 
the author has divided his paper, and with the six or seven propositions 
termed conclusions ; but I do not see that the conclusions follow from the 
premises. I agree with the conclusions, and I would agree with the 
premises, but I do not see them. Where are the facts which led the author 
to state these conclusions ? Some conclusions might possibly follow, but 
certainly not these. Had time allowed, I think I could have shown this in 
every case. I will, however, take two points. In the first place, I would 
ask what Mr. Howard means by a conclusion which we have with more or 
less certainty arrived at ? If it does not result from a certainty, it should 
not be called a conclusion. In the second place, as to the assertion that 
Adam was the head of the human family, I could not find any statement 
in the paper which justified the conclusion that he was, other than the 
passage in the first chapter of Genesis, in which I agree ; but why 
* Job xx. 24 ; Jer. xxxix. 7. 
