THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3122, 30 June 1881, Page 2

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

[To THE EdITOB OE , THE DAILY TeLEGBAPH.J Sir, —The fact that there is nothing contained in the tract on the Devonshire cave explorations, which has not been familiar for the last twelve yeare to "even moderately informed scientific readers," • seems to be a disappointment to " Quis r ;" whereas that fact was ray chief assertion when I wrote of ecienee primers and the existence of Man in Britain two hundred thousand years since. The fact that the information wae common and easily accessible was my reason for saying these books talked to schoolboys. If I had referred to Standard Authors, whose worke are priced by pounds instead of pence, I could have understood the difficulty experienced by " Quis" in belie ving that schoolboys get at the information. Besides, supposing that the tract referred to is in no danger of falling into the hands of an enquiring boy ; did I not in, my letter quote statements from the fifth Royal Reader, which clash with the account of the creation as given by (for the sake of argument say) Moses ? Does not that school book teach that coal has been formed through the application of heat and pressure during "cointless ages" to trees and vegetable growths of the primordial world ? And does it not also teach that vegetable growth is impossible without Sun ] and Shower ; and that, consequently, Sun and Shower, growth and decay, life and death, have been existent phenomena on this planet of ours for " count- r * r less ages ?" Can our schoolboy hold this conclusion at one and the same time with the teachings of Genesis, that some time between five and six thousand years ago trees, animals, the sua itself, and all dependant on that source, .first came into existence ? I think not; and the question "shall he be taught from one book conclusions denied by another" remains as awkward, as- pertinent, and as much unanswered as before.

Coming, however, to the tract on the antiquity of Man, from which " Quis" appears to have learned.nothing, I deny that "it is simply the repetition of the cumulative argument from a number of extremely hypothetical positions to arrive at the probable antiquity of man which has been often insisted on," as asserted by " Quis." Ou the contrary, it is a statement of lately ascertained facts, with no " hypothetical positions,' , with no deductions but those which even a very moderate amount of common sense is forced to acquiesce in. It tells of a cave in Devonshire the roof of which is limestone. The rainwater percolating through forms on the floor of the cave a stalagmitic layer. On, or rather slightly in, the substance of this layer, are names and dates carved or cut; the genuineness of which are proved by the fact that records referring to them are now existing in the transactions '. of the Torbay Philosophical Society. By careful examination aud measurements it is found that the accretion of this limey matter has been proceeding at the rate of one twentieth of an inch in 250 years. This is easily shown by the thickness of it deposited upon the dated scratchings of names. At this rate, an inch or. it took 5000 years to be deposited. The uppermost layer is sixty inches thick ; at this rate the upper layer was not deposited in less time than 300,000 years. Below this layer is found a baud of black earth, in which are found not only bones of animals long extinct in Britain, and bones of animals long extinct in the world, but the most prominent and decided signs of man. Bone needlea, bone harpoons, teeth of animals in greatoJl

numbers cleanly bored as if for necklaces, (bored anyway, whatever for) and polished stone axes. 80 that, if these things are to be trusted, men liy«;d, Lunted and died in Devon 300,000 years ago. But, and as if to utterly crush those who are so fond of the statement that Man, Sin, and Death, all came into existence together six thousand yeara ago, on the banks of the Euphrates, this 300,000 years is only a little way back towards the time when we first get signs, of men in Britain. Underneath this layer of stalagtxutic limestone sixty inches thick; underneath this layer of black earth deposited 300,000 years ago, in which are found the implements ot men ;

"underneath this, is another twelve feet of stalagmite, which at the Game rate of progression in depositation took 720,000 years for its formation; and beneath this again is another band of earth containing tne bones whicb prove the existence of animals, and the stone axes proving the existence of Man* So that, one million arid the fifth of a million years ago, man tool-making, hunting Man—existed in Devon. Should " Quia " object to this (not because of evidence but because itclashes with theology) what shall I say ? Shall we suppose a possible exaggeration, and take half the time ? Or a tenth—-a twentieth—or even a fiftieth part of it, and say " twenty thousand years ago men hunted the Mammoth in Britain ?' What then ? Shall we be any nearer to' Bquaring our pennyworth of research with theology and " the book of the clericals ?" Jt think not; but, and here is the gist of the whole matter — those who prefer to believe that Man is sufficiently accounted for by Genesis, as to his history and the duration of his presence on this planet, can only do so by refusing to accept the result of scientific research—the efforts of men like Lyell, Murchison, and Miller.—l am, &c, Trigon. Napier, June 30, 1881.