shipwreck, and many a naval fight on those waters, and hundreds of Dutch and Spanish soldiers and sailors had met there with a watery grave,” yet not a solitary portion of the human skeleton was to be found in its bed.44 Thus we see that, in the majority of cases, we must rely on other evidence than the presence of human bones to prove the existence of man in the geological periods of the past. In the case of the Haarlem Lake again, there was found the wreck of one or two vessels, and some ancient armor. So, had it been a disputed point whether man was a denizen of this planet at the time when the area in question was covered by water, it would have been settled beyond a doubt by these relics of his industry, even though portions of the human frame itself were entirely wanting. And, in reality, proofs of this nature are just as satisfactory as it would be to discover human bones. If, on a desert island, we find arrow-heads, javelins, a place where there had been a fire, split bones, and other _débris_ of a feast, we are as much justified in asserting that man had been there, as we would be had we seen him with our own eyes. In the same manner, if we detect in any strata of the past any undoubted products of human industry—such as weapons, or implements and ornaments—in such position that we know they could not have been deposited there since the formation of the bed itself, we have no hesitancy in asserting that man himself is of the same antiquity as the strata containing the implements. In the great majority of cases, this is the only kind of evidence possible to advance. It is now well known that the first stage in the culture of any people, is what is called the Stone Age. That is to say, their weapons and implements were made from stone, or at least the majority of them were. We will discuss on another page this point, and also the grounds leading us to infer that many of the extremely rude forms are really the work of man. Let us now return to the Miocene Age, in which we are to seek for the presence of man. In 1867 a French geologist, by the name of Bourgeois, who had been searching some beds of the Miocene Age, near Thenay, France, found a number of flints of such a peculiar shape, that he concluded they could only be explained by supposing that man formed them. In this case there is to question as to the age of the stratum containing the flints. All geologists are agreed that it is of the Miocene Age. The question then is, whether the flints were artificially cut or not. On this question there has been a great division of opinion, and we can not do better than to examine and see where the Principal scientific men stand on this point.