there was no mark of degradation about any part of its structure, Huxley concludes his description of it with the following words :— "It is in fact a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage."
Considering all the circumstances, it appears to me that an exaggerated importance has been given to the Engis skull on account of its supposed great antiquity, which, it was thought, had been established beyond doubt by the presence in the same matrix of bones of the extinct animals, forgetting, as G. de Mortillet had suggested, that the six or seven skeletons found in these caverns might have been Neolithic interments.
FIG. 18. Engis Skull, top view. (After Huxley.)
Dr Schmerling published an account of his discoveries in two splendid volumes, with an atlas of seventy-four plates (1833-4), in which, in the most unequivocal language, he contended for the contemporaneity of man with these extinct animals ; but owing chiefly to the influence of the great naturalist, Cuvier, his opinions and arguments did not receive the attention they merited. Remains of man found in caverns were thus summarily disposed of by Cuvier:— "On a fait grand bruit, il y a quelques mois de certains fragments humains trouvés dans des cavernes à ossements de nos provinces méridionales, mais il suffit qu'ils aient été trouvés dans les cavernes pour qu'ils rentrent dans la règle." (Discours sur les Revolutions du Globe, p. 89.)
Schmerling regarded the débris of man and animals as lying in a haphazard manner, under the belief that they had
