A MAN OF THE CHELI.EAN PERIOD 183 
which formed the matrix for these osseous remains, 
nor exact measurements of the position of the 
ancient relics. The gravel bed was about 10 feet 
thick, resting directly upon the chalk and the loamy- 
stratum, about 2 feet 6 inches from the bottom. 
" Matthew H. Heys. 
'"'•July 12///, 1 910." 
There can be no doubt that in September 1888 the 
Galley Hill skeleton was found at a depth of about 
8 feet in the 100-foot terrace, resting in a stratum of 
loam. The workman. Jack Allsop, Mr Elliott, and 
Mr Heys were all qualified to form an opinion as to 
whether or not the terrace over the skeleton was intact. 
In their opinion it was. That was also the opinion 
which Mr Newton formed in 1894 — on an examination 
of all the evidence then available. Mr Newton's verdict 
must carry weight with all geologists, for he has spent a 
lifetime in laying, souncily and solidly, a foundation for 
our knowledge of the animals which lived during recent 
geological periods. His eminence as a geologist, and 
especially his caution as a thinker, are the best guarantees 
we could have that these human remains belong to a man 
who lived while the 100-foot terrace was still in process 
of formation. As for my part, when I commenced a 
systematic examination of these remains in 19 10 my 
attitude towards them was one of scepticism. Tlie 
discovery of a man — differing only in details from men 
now living in England — in so ancient a formation seemed 
at variance with a belief in the orderly succession of 
evolutionary stages in man's early history. It was only 
when I saw that there was no possibility of denying the 
authenticity of the discovery without doing an injury to 
truth, that it became apparent to me, as it had done to 
many other inquirers,^ that the find at Galley Hill had 
• M. A. Rutot, " L'age probable du squelette de Galley Hill," Bullet. 
Socu'te Beige de Geol., 1909, vol. xxiii. p. 239. Professor V. C'.uiffrida- 
Ruggeri, Archiv. per V Antropol.., 1910, vol. xl. p. 3. Professor H. 
Klaatsch, Zeitsch. fiir Et/mologie, 1909, vol. xli. p. 537 ; Praehist. 
Zeitschrift, 1910, vol. i. p. 296. 
