LYELL ON THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. 
215 
These are three in number—one by M. Morlot, one by M. Grillierom 
and the third by M. Troyon. Of the two former we will say nothing ; 
but the objections to the third are, we think, conclusive, and we 
would specially call Sir Charles’ attention to the memoir by M. Jayet, 
“ Sur la Plaine de l’Orbe,” which, however, probably reached him 
too late to influence his first edition. Sir Charles says that the pile- 
works at Chamblon, which are concerned in this calculation, belong 
to the Bronze age, and in this case the result would agree closely 
with that obtained by MM. Moriot and Grillieron. M. Troyon, how¬ 
ever (Habitations lacustres, p. 73), considers Chamblon as a Stone 
age station, and we are not aware that any bronze objects have since 
been found there. 
In spite of personal considerations, and notwithstanding the sup¬ 
port which they afford to his general argument, Sir Charles finds 
himself unable to accept the conclusions drawn by Mr. Horner from 
his researches in Egypt. We are disposed to agree with him in this, 
but we are influenced by different considerations, and the objection 
which appears to him fatal to Mr. Horner’s argument, seems to us, 
on the contrary, to be fallacious. 
“ The point sought to be determined was the exact amount of 
“ Nile mud which has accumulated in 3000 or more years, since the 
“ time when certain ancient monuments, such as the obelisk at 
“ Heliopolis, or the statue of King Bameses at Memphis, are sup- 
“ posed by some antiquaries to have been erected.” 
Sir Charles admits that the researches were judiciously and care¬ 
fully made, and he disposes of several objections which have been 
urged against them; but then, he adds, “ the ancient Egyptians are 
“ known to have been in the habit of enclosing with embankments 
“ the areas on which they erected temples, statues, and obelisks, so as 
“ to exclude the waters of the Nile.” .... 
And further, “Even if we knew the date of the abandonment of 
“ such embankments,” it is argued that the enclosed areas would not 
afford the means of “ ascertaining the average rate of deposit in the 
“ alluvial plain.” Eor, when the waters at length broke into such 
depressions, they would, “at first, carry with them into the enclosure 
“ much mud washed from the steep surrounding banks, so that a 
“ greater quantity would be deposited in a few years than perhaps in 
“ as many centuries on the great plain outside the depressed area.” 
But this would only bring the depression up to the general level of 
the plain ; the “ disturbing causes ” would then altogether cease, and 
the general elevation would therefore still be a measure of the rate 
of deposition; so that, ingenious as Sir Charles Lyell’s argument at 
first appears, it does not, in our opinion, affect the value of Mr. 
Horner’s conclusion. 
Let us now endeavour to ascertain what is the antiquity which 
Sir Charles ascribes to the human race. He nowhere, indeed, gives 
us his opinion in so many words, but, to arrive at it, we must collate 
