[15] “La poterie en Belgique à l’ age du mammouth,” Revue d’Anthropologie, 1887.
[16] Ac. des Sciences, Nov. 9, 1885. We must add that at a later séance M. Cartailhac contested, if not the facts, the conclusions deducted from them.
[17] But what is the value of categorical assertions of this kind in presence of the fragments of pottery found at different levels in Kent’s Hole? One of these fragments was so rotten that when placed in water it formed a black liquid mud as it decomposed.
[18] I have not space to speak here of the curious pottery found in America. The most ancient specimens, moreover, are of much later date than the Quaternary epoch. I can only refer those interested in the subject to my book on “Prehistoric America,” published in French by M. Masson of Paris, and in English in America by Messrs. G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
[19] “De Architectura,” book ii., c. i.
[20] On the subject of tatooing an excellent work may be consulted by Dr Magitot (“Ass. Franç. pour l’Avancement des Sciences,” Alger, 1881).
[21] Cypræa rufa, Cypræa lurida (Comptes rendus Acad. des Sciences, vol. lxxxiv., p. 1060).
[22] On this point an excellent work may be consulted by S. Reinach: “Le Musée de Saint Germain,” p. 232.
[23] Vaudry: Acad. des Sciences, August 25, 1890.
[24] A. Bertrand: Acad. des Inscriptions, April 29 and May 6, 1887.