Paleolitli and NeolitJi. — Claypole. 337 
ern fauna and nothing therefore is more natural than that liis 
remains and theirs should occur in like conditions and circum- 
stances, and it is easy to see the strong confirmation which 
the coincidence lends to Prof. Geikie's interpretation. 
Obviously this theory in a few words amounts to the prop- 
osition that palaeolithic man is in Britain of interglacial age 
and that his remains are never found in truly post-glacial 
beds. I say "truly" because in a few cases it has not been 
possible to determine the exact dates and these must be set 
aside as furnishing no evidence in either direction. But wher- 
ever the age of the implement-bearing strata can be satisfac- 
torily ascertained Prof. Geikie maintains that all those yielding 
palaeoliths are of earlier date than the close of the ice-age and 
that all of later date invariably furnish implements of neolithic 
character. 
There is now no difficulty in explaining the absence of 
palseoliths from the northern portions of the island, while neo- 
liths occur in abundance over the whole. The latter are the 
remains of the population that came in after the final disap- 
pearance of the ice, while the former could only remain in that 
part which the ice did not reach. Both are consequently 
found in the south and southeast, but palaeoliths occur there 
only. 
Omitting for lack of space several other confirmatory facts 
that might be adduced no one can fail to note how satisfac- 
torily Prof. Geikie's theory accounts for the "patina" or aged 
appearance upon the surface of a palaeoiith. It is not vet pos- 
sible even to surmise with any confidence the relative ages 
of interglacial and postglacial deposits, but no geologist can 
entertain the smallest doubt that they are separated by an in- 
terval, measured in years, of enormous duration. 
This is alone a very strong confirmation of the theory and 
combined with those previously mentioned cannot fail to com- 
mend it to the acceptance of archaeologists, especially when 
they reflect that no other explanation of the facts has been put 
forward that can in any degree be compared with it for clear- 
ness and force. 
In British archaeology therefore ])alaeolithic man and gla- 
cial or interglacial man are synonymous terms, while neolithic 
