prey. Cranes waded in the rivers for fish. Geese, herons, and pheasants must have been abundant. Our main interest centers in the order Quadrumana. We must remember that this order appeared in the Eocene. Several species were present in the Miocene. They wandered in the forests of France, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy, and doubtless found abundant food in the figs and bread-fruit, walnuts, almonds, dates, and other nuts growing there. One of the most important is regarded as belonging to the same genus as the Gibbons. This is the genus which has been sometimes regarded as making a nearer approach to man than any other monkey. Others, however, consider it as belonging to an extinct family. In addition to this species there were at least three other species: thus there was no absence of simian life in the Miocene. From the sketch we have thus far drawn of the Miocene Age, it seems to have been a very favorable one in every respect. One writer affirms, that "the world never experienced a more beautiful period." And indeed it seems as if the facts bear out this statement. A genial, temperate climate was the rule, even to high northern latitudes. We need not doubt but that there were grassy plains, wooded slopes, and rolling rivers. 51 Was man present to take advantage of all these favorable surroundings? Did he wander through the evergreen forests, and hunt the deer, antelope, and hogs--the hipparions, and mastodons, and deinotheres--then so numerous? We know of no inherent improbability of his existence at that time. An ape belonging to a highly organized genus was then living in Europe. Every condition considered necessary for the primeval Garden of Eden was then satisfied. Let us stop for a minute and examine the nature of the evidence considered sufficient to prove the presence of man during any of the past geological ages. Should we be so fortunate as to find portions of the bones of the human skeleton in a geological formation in such positions that they could not possibly have been introduced there since the deposition of the containing bed, it would of course prove that man was at least as old as the formation itself. But it happens that human remains in beds of a previous geological age are very rare. Indeed, human remains in formations of the Pleistocene Age, during which we have ample testimony, as we shall see, of the presence of man, are very rare. The cases in which there can be no doubt can be reckoned on the fingers. The explanation of this state of things is not at all difficult, for it is only under very rare circumstances that portions of the bones of animals even larger than man are preserved to us in geological strata. Vast numbers die and vanish away without leaving a trace behind them for every fragmentary bone we recover. In the case of man we must remember that, in previous eras, he was present in very small numbers; that, owing to his intelligence, he would not be as liable to be drowned and swept away, and so mingle his remains with beds of river detritus then forming, as were animals. Mr. Lyell has made some remarks on the draining of the Haarlem Lake by the government of Holland in 1853, which 52 shows that even favorable circumstances do not always preserve remains for future inspection. Though called a lake, this body of water was an arm of the sea, covering about forty-five thousand acres. The population which had lived on the shores of the lake was between thirty and forty thousand souls. "There had been many a 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. 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 arrowheads, javelins, a place where there had been a fire, split bones, and other
debris 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. 53 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. In 1872, at the scientific congress in Brussels, this question was referred to a committee composed of the most competent men from the different countries of Europe. We are sorry to say that, after a thorough consideration of them, the judges were unable to agree. Some accepted them, others rejected them, and still others were undecided. Some of the latter have since become convinced by recent discoveries. Since this discovery, similar specimens have been described as having been found in Portugal, and from another locality in France. Some men of 54 the highest authority accept these flints as proving the presence of man in Miocene times. This is supported by such men as Quatrefages, Hamy, Mortillet, and Capellini. These are all known to be competent and careful geologists. Another class does not think the evidence strong enough to declare these flints of human origin, and so do not think it proved that man lived in Europe in Miocene times; but do believe that we will eventually find proofs of his existence during that era in the warm and tropical regions of the globe. This is the view of such men as Lubbock, Evans, Huxley, and Winchell. Still others say that, during the vast lapse of years since Miocene times, all the species of land mammals then alive have perished--their place being taken by other species--and therefore it is incredible that man, the most highly specialized of all animals, should have survived. And hence, if these Thenay flints are really artificial in their origin, it is more reasonable to suppose they were cut by one of the higher apes, then living in France, than by man. This is the view of Prof. Dawkins and Prof. Gaudry. As to the last view, it is surely but reasonable to suppose, with Quatrefages, that the superior intelligence of man would serve to protect him from the operation of causes that would effect the extinction of lower animals. Hence, unless some evidence be produced to show that species of apes are known to make rude stone implements, or some evidence that they did this in past ages, we must believe, with Geikie and others, that these flints prove that Miocene man lived in France, unless indeed we refuse to believe that they are artificial. It also seems to us that those who hold to the view that man was living in other parts of the world, as Asia, during the Miocene Age, ought readily to admit that a few wandering bands might penetrate into 55 Europe. The climate was tropical, there was an abundance of animal life, and, if man was living anywhere, it is very reasonable to suppose that, at some epoch during the course of the Miocene Age, he would have found his way to Europe, unless shut off by the sea. It therefore seems to us that the presence of those cut flints is conclusive of the presence of man in Europe during the Miocene Age. At the same time we can not affirm that this is the conclusion of the scientific world. They seem to have heeded the remark of Quatrefages, that "in such a matter there is no great urgency," and are waiting for further discoveries. Thus far in our review we have noticed the steady progress in the forms of life. In the Miocene Age we have seen all the types of life below man present, and some indications of the presence of man himself. We must now learn what we can of the Pliocene Age, the last division of the Tertiary Age. The Pliocene Age need not detain us long. Considerable changes in the geography of both Europe and America were going forward during the Miocene Age, and the result was quite a change in climate. There was a steady elevation of the Pacific coast region of America, and, as a consequences a period of great volcanic outbursts in California and Oregon. At the same time the bridge connecting
