remains were derived from different sources and belonged to two entirely distinct periods, would be difficult of disproof; but when we consider that the instances of such discoveries are already numerous, and have, moreover, taken place in such widely distant localities, that assumption is untenable.
We have at various places round Abbeville the flint implements found associated with the remains of the mammoth, rhinoceros, and other extinct animals; at St. Acheul, near Amiens, we have the like; in the pits of La Motte Piquet they are found with the remains of the mammoth, the Cervus tarandus priscus, the Bos primigenius, and probably the cave-lion; at Hoxne with the mammoth and other remains; and in Gray's Inn Lane with remains of an elephant. This constant association of the two classes of relics affords certainly strong presumptive evidence that the animals to which the bones belonged were living at the same period as the race of intelligent beings who fashioned the weapons of flint.
An argument has been raised against their having co-existed, upon the assumption that human bones have never been discovered in company with those of the extinct quadrupeds. But neither are they recorded to have been found in company with those implements which are acknowledged by nearly all to be of human workmanship.
It appears to me, moreover, very doubtful, in point of fact, whether human bones have not been really found associated with those of the extinct mammalia, more especially in cave-deposits. At all events it is a negative very difficult to prove. But, assuming the fact to be as stated, are there not reasons why it is probable that human remains should be of extremely rare occurrence, if not entirely absent, in such drifts as those of the valley of the Somme and at Hoxne? The mammalian remains found in them are probably mainly those of animals whose dead bodies had been reduced to skeletons, and were lying on the face of the earth before being carried off by the water, whether of an overwhelming cataclysm, or the torrent of a flooded river, and not simply those of animals drowned by its action. Whereas it may safely be assumed that the natural instincts of man would have led them to "bury their dead out of their sight," and thus place them beyond the reach of the currents of water.
It must also be borne in mind that there is no appearance of the drift at any of the places mentioned having been caused by anything like a general submergence of the country, or an universal deluge, as it does not extend over the highest points of ground; so that there is no reason for supposing the waters from which the drift was deposited to have caused any great loss of human life.
It is somewhat curious that we have already instances of the existence of
