"In order to establish the existence of man at such a remote period the proofs must be convincing. It must be shown, first, that the objects found are of human workmanship; secondly, that they are really found as stated; and, thirdly, the age of the beds in which they are found must be clearly ascertained and determined."[EX] These tests I propose to apply to the evidence for the Tertiary man recently brought forward in Europe, and then to consider the significance of certain discoveries on the Pacific coast of our own continent. [Footnote EX: Ibid., p. 148.] Tertiary deposits in Europe are alleged to have supplied three sorts of evidence of this fact: _First_, the bones of man himself; _second_, bones of animals showing incisions or fractures supposed to have been produced by human agency; _third_, chipped flints believed to exhibit marks of design in their production. A very complete survey of the question of the antiquity of man was published in 1883 by M. Gabriel de Mortillet, one of its most eminent investigators, under the title of Le Préhistorique. In that work he subjected to a most rigid examination all the evidence for Tertiary man, coming under either of these three heads, that had been brought forward up to that date. The instances of the discovery of human bones in Europe were two--at Colle del Vento, in Savona, and Castenedolo, near Brescia, both in Italy. At the former site, in a Pliocene marine deposit abounding in fossil oysters and containing some _scattered_ bones of fossil mammals, a human skeleton was found _with the bones lying in their natural connection_. Mortillet, however, and many others regard this as an instance of a subsequent interment rather than as proof that the man lived in Pliocene times.[EY] At Castenedolo, in a similar marine Pliocene formation, on three different occasions human skeletons have been discovered, but in different strata. One investigator has accounted for these as the result of a shipwreck in the Pliocene period. This bold hypothesis not only requires that man should have been sufficiently advanced at that very remote period to have navigated the sea, but it calls for two shipwrecks, at different times, at the same point. It has, however, since been abandoned by its author in favor of the presumption of subsequent interments, as in the previous instance.[EZ] [Footnote EY: This is also the opinion of Hamy, _Précis de Paléontologie Humaine_, p. 67. Professor Le Conte, _Elements of Geology_ (third edition, 1891), p. 609, is wrong in attributing the opposite conclusion to Hamy, on the evidence of "flint implements found in this locality."] [Footnote EZ: Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana, tome xv, p. 109 (August 18, 1889).]