undisturbed, and so does not prove
to a certainty that it was of the same age as the stratum.<62> And
Mr. Geikie thinks that the stratum itself is of a later age than the
Pliocene.<63> It is but right that geologists should thus carefully scan
all the evidence produced.

Illustration of Cut on Bones of a Whale from Pliocene
Deposit.--------------------------------

In 1876 Prof. Capellini discovered, in a Pliocene deposit in Italy, the
bones of a whale, which were so marked with cuts and incisions that he
thought the only explanation was to say they had been cut by men. In
this case<64> there is no dispute as to the age of the stratum. Neither
is there much doubt but that the cuts are the work of man. It is quite
true that Mr. Evans has suggested that they may be the work of fishes.
In this he is followed by Prof. Winchell.<65> But there appears to be
little ground for such belief, because the cuts are all on the outside
faces of rib-bones, and the outer faces of the backbones. From the
position occupied by the remaining portions of the skeleton, Prof.
Capellini is sure that the animal had run aground, and, in that
condition, was discovered and killed by men, who then, by means of flint
knives, cut away such portions of food as they wished. It must have been
lying on its left side, since the cuts were all made on bones of the
right.<66> It is not probable that fishes would have been apt to choose
the outside faces of the ribs on the right side for their meals. These
cut bones have been carefully examined by many competent men, who have
agreed with Capellini that they are the work of men.<67> Mr. Dawkins
thinks the cuts were artificial, but he says, "It is not, however, to
my mind satisfactorily shown that these were obtained from undisturbed
strata."<68> Now these bones have been found in several localities,
always in Pliocene deposits, which formed the shores of the Pliocene
sea.<69> Knowing how carefully geologists inquire into all the
surroundings of a find, surely, if Capellini and others are the
competent men they are admitted to be, they would have informed us long
ago if they were not found in undisturbed strata.

Mr. Dawkins also objects because fragments of pottery were found in the
strata. "Pottery," says he, "was unknown in the Pleistocene Age,<70>
and therefore is unlikely to have been found in the Pliocene."<71> Mr.
Geikie says this objection is founded on a mistake, as Prof. Capellini
told him the pott