THE DATING OF EARLY HUMAN REMAINS. 53
of the various objects ("rods," and portion of bracelet) carved
in Mammoth ivory which were placed with the body; (3) the
raddle in which the body was interred; (4) the Cro-Magnon
affinities of the race-type.
Now, although it is true that we might readily dispose of
each one of these lines of evidence as due to various accidents,
it seems to me unlikely that they would all converge together
except in the case of an interment of Late Palaeolithic date.
But at the time the discovery was made there was no means
of understanding these evidences, and the position taken up by
Buckland was perfectly sound. That is, he recorded the facts,
but interpreted them in the manner which then seemed the
probable one, namely as a comparatively modern interment.
Thus we have to recognize that the case which appeared
at the time to be the improbable has ultimately justified itself,
in just the same manner as the contemporary occurrence of flint
implements with extinct mammalia has also done. There are
many who would argue from this that we should, at the present
time, accept the improbable interpretation of doubtful cases.
The fallacy of this argument lies in this: that it ignores the fact
that whereas for one improbable interpretation that ultimately
proves to be correct, a thousand cases could be quoted wherein
the probable also proved to be the true.
It may be noted that at Paviland, thanks to the researches
of Professor Sollas, we now possess cumulative evidence pointing
to a Late Palaeolithic date which is up to the present wanting
at Cheddar, and also at Hailing, which we will now consider.
THE HALLING SKELETON.
This is another interesting illustration of an interment from
a prehistoric "floor" where this "floor" has itself become
buried under a later geological deposit.27 We have seen
repeated illustrations of this principle in the French cave ex-
plorations, where the date of the interment has been settled
by the age of the overlying relic-beds, which have accumulated
above the "floor" from which the interment was made.
I think that the cautious attitude taken up by Mr. Cook, the
discoverer of the remains, is fully justified. The flint working
so far found upon the "floor" is inconclusive, and the same is
27 W. II Cook., Journ. R. Anthrop. Inst., 1914, vol. xliv., p. 212. A. Keith, Ibid., p. 228.