Man and the Glacial Period

by G. Frederick Wright

But it is difficult to determine the rate at which stalagmite accumulates. As is well known, this deposit is a form of carbonate of lime, and accumulates when water holding the substance in solution drops down upon the surface, where it is partially evaporated. It then leaves a thin film of the substance upon the floor. The rate of the accumulation will depend upon both the degree to which the water is saturated with the carbonate and upon the quantity of the water which percolates through the roof of the cavern. These factors are so variable, and so dependent upon unknown conditions in the past, that it is very difficult to estimate the result for any long period of time. Occasionally a quarter of an inch of stalagmite accretion has been known to take place in a cavern in a single year, while in Kent’s Cavern, over a visitor’s name inscribed in the year 1688, a film of stalagmite only a twentieth of an inch in thickness has accumulated. If, therefore, we could reckon upon a uniformity of conditions stretching indefinitely back into the past, we could determine the age of these oldest remains of man in Kent’s Hole by a simple sum in arithmetic, and should infer that the upper layer of stalagmite required 240,000 years, and the lower 576,000 years, for their growth, which would carry us back more than 700,000 years, and some have not hesitated to affix as early a date as this to these lowest implement-bearing gravels.

But other portions of the cave show an actual rate of accretion very much larger. Six inches of stalagmite is there found overlying some remains of Romano-Saxon times which cannot be more than 2,000 years old. Assuming this as the uniform rate, the total time required for the deposit of the stalagmitic floors would still be about 70,000 years. But, as we have seen, the present rates of deposition are probably considerably less than those which took place during the moister climate of the Glacial epoch. Still, even by supposing the rate to be increased fourfold, the age of this lower stratum would be reduced to only 12,000 years. So that, as Mr. James Geikie well maintains, “Even on the most extravagant assumption as to the former rate of stalagmitic accretion, we shall yet be compelled to admit a period of many thousands of years for the formation of the stalagmitic pavements in Kent’s Cavern.”[EL] We should add, however, that there is much well-founded doubt whether the implements found in the lowest stratum were really in place, since, according to Dr. Evans, “Owing to previous excavations and to the presence of burrowing animals, the remains from above and below the stalagmite have become intermingled.”[EM]

[EL] Prehistoric Europe, p. 83.

[EM] Stone and Flint Implements, p. 446.

An attempt was made by M. Morlot in Switzerland to obtain the chronology of the Glacial period by studying the deltas of the streams descending the glaciated valleys. He paid special attention to that of the Tinière, a stream which flows into Lake Geneva near Villeneuve. The modern delta of this stream consists of gravel and sand deposited in the shape of a flattened cone, and investigations upon it were facilitated by a long railroad cutting through it. “Three layers of vegetable soil, each of which must at one time have formed the surface of the cone, have been cut through at different depths.”[EN] In the upper stratum Roman tiles and a coin were found; in the second stratum, unvarnished pottery and implements of bronze; while in the lower stratum, at a depth of nineteen feet from the surface, a human skull was found, to which Morlot assigned an age of from 5,000 to 7,000 years.

[EN] Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, p. 28.

But Dr. Andrews, after carefully revising the data, felt confident that the time required for the whole deposit of this lower delta was not more than 5,000 years, and that the oldest human remains in it, which were about half way from between the base and the surface of the cone, were probably not more than 3,000 years old.

Still, the significance of this estimate principally arises from the relation of the modern delta to older deltas connected with the Glacial period. Above this modern delta, formed by the river in its present proportions, there is another, more ancient, about ten times as large, whose accumulation doubtless took place upon the final retreat of the ice from Lake Geneva. No remains of man have been found in this, but it doubtless corresponds in age with the high-level gravels in the valley of the Somme, in which the remains of man and the mammoth, together with other extinct animals, have been found.

We do not see, however, that any very definite calculation can be made concerning the time required for its deposition. Lyell was inclined to consider it ten times as old as the modern delta, simply upon the ground of its being ten times as large. On Morlot’s estimate of the age of the modern delta, therefore, the retreat of the ice whose melting torrents deposited the upper delta would be fixed at 100,000 years ago, and upon Dr. Andrews’s calculation, at about 20,000.

But it is evident that the problem is not one of simple multiplication. The floods of water which accompanied the melting back of the ice from the upper portions of this valley must have been immensely larger than those of the present streams, and their transporting power immensely greater still. Hence we do not see that any conclusions can be drawn from the deltas of the Tinière to give countenance to extreme views concerning the date of the close of the Glacial period.[EO]