The presence of the bones of sheep underneath the remains of mammoth, bear, and other animals, coupled with the state of the cave earth, which had been disturbed before Dr. Buckland’s examination of the cave, would prove that the interment is not of pleistocene date. No traces of sheep or goat have as yet been afforded by any pleistocene deposit in Britain, France, or Germany. Dr. Buckland’s conclusion, that the interment is relatively more modern than the accumulation with remains of the extinct mammalia, must be accepted as the true interpretation of the facts. The intimate association of the two sets of remains, of widely diverse ages, in this cave show that extreme care is necessary in cave exploration. _The Cave of Engis._ Human remains have been obtained from some of the caves of Belgium under circumstances which are generally considered to indicate that they are of the same antiquity as the skeletons of the animals with which they are associated. The possibility, however, of the contents of caves of different ages being mixed by the action of water, or by the burrowing of animals, or by subsequent interments, renders such an association of little value, unless the evidence be very decided. The famous human skull discovered by Dr. Schmerling[156] in the cave of Engis, near Liége, in 1833, is a case in point. It was obtained from a mass of breccia, along with bones and teeth of mammoth, rhinoceros, horse, hyæna, and bear; and subsequently M. Dupont[157] found in the same spot a human ulna, other human bones, worked flints, and a small fragment of coarse earthenware. The discovery of this last is an argument in favour of the human remains being of a later date than the extinct mammalia, since pottery has not yet been proved to have been known to the palæolithic races who co-existed with them, while it is very abundant in neolithic burial-places and tombs. The fact of all the objects being cemented together by calcareous infiltration is no test of relative age, which cannot be ascertained without distinct stratification, such as that in the caves of Wookey and Kent’s Hole. It seems therefore to me, that the conditions of the discovery are too doubtful to admit of the conclusion of Sir Charles Lyell and other eminent writers, that the human remains are of palæolithic age. The skull is described by Professor Huxley[158] as being of average size, its contour agreeing equally well with some Australian and European skulls; it presents no marks of degradation, “and 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.” Its measurements fall within the limits of the long-skulls described in the preceding chapter, and it certainly belongs to the same class. The following Table will show the variation in size and form of the skulls mentioned in this chapter: _Measurements of Skulls of doubtful antiquity._