304 
ME. PEESTWICH ON FLINT-DIPLEMEXTS. 
objected to, except that the fact was considered impossible and the chances of error 
great. It was not, I believe, controverted upon any specific grounds. 
With regard to the remarkable case of the Liege caverns. Dr. ScmiEELEVG being a 
proficient comparative anatomist, his opinion necessarily attracted considerable atten- 
tion, and a report on his work was presented to the “ Academie des Sciences ” by 
M. Geoffeoy St.-Hilaiee*. Dr. ScmiEELiXG considered that the one sufficiently per- 
fect skull found with the bones of the extinct animals was of a low order, and suggested 
that it resembled rather the skull of an Ethiopian than that of an European : he fuither 
expressed an opinion, that the human bones, together with the fiint- and bone-imple- 
ments discovered in these caves, belonged to a race of antediluvian menf . M. Geoffeoy 
St.-Hilaiee, than whom there could not have been a better judge, looking apparently 
at the question from this point of view only, came, no doubt justly, to the conclusion 
that these presumed fossil skulls presented no greater deviation from the present type 
than might be found in many varieties of the Caucasian race now living. "SATience it 
being inferred that the two skulls were those of existing man, and therefore, though 
ancient, not of Pleistocene date, Dr. Schmeeling’s opinion failed to obtain acceptance. 
But it seems to me that it was judging the question on what in law term is called § ** a 
false issue ; ” for the main question was not whether we here had an extinct species of 
man, but whether these skulls, being those of man, were actually in true association 
with the remains of extinct animals. It does not follow, nor did M. Schmeelixg insist, 
that because the animals were extinct, any race of man occui-ring with them must also 
be of an extinct species. 
I notice these few cases to show that it may in some instances be necessary to rense 
the opinions which have been passed on these and many other more or less probable 
cases, and that we may have to reconsider much of the evidence afresh. 
§ 5. PAETICIJLAES EEGAEDIXG HOSXE. 
On my return from France, my attention was directed by Mr. Evans to another case 
of a very remarkable character, described, so far back as the first year in this century, 
in a paper of great value for the independent and corroborative eGdence it aflbrds, and 
for the bold and suggestive views of the author. Although kiiovii to antiquaiies. 
its geological bearings had escaped notice. It relates to a discovery made, and com- 
municated to the Society of Antiquaries, by Mr. John Feeee, F.R.S., F.S.A.^:, under 
* Comptes Eendus, vol. xvii. p. 13, 1838. t Op. cit. vol. ii. p. 178-9. 
X Specimens of tlie Hoxne flint-implements have been preserved in the British Museum, and in the 
collection of the Society of Antiquaries. They closely resemble the French specimens. There is .also in 
the British Museum anotlier single specimen, singiiharly Like some of the sh.arper-pointed speciuieus from 
Amiens. Eespecting this specimen, I am indebted to Mr. Franks for the following p.ai'ticulars : — “ Cata- 
logue of Sloane Collection, No. 24!6 — A British veapon found, vith Elephant’s tooth, opposite to Black 
Mary’s near Grayes Inn Lane. — Conyers. It is a large black flint shaped into the figm-e of a spear’s 
point — K.” N.B. K probably means tluat this object was formerly in EAmp’s Collection (before 1715). 
