XXIV. Discoveries of Fossil Bones in several Counties.

Extract of three very remarkable Letters, communicated by Peter Collinson, Esq. F.R. S. concerning Elephants' Bones of vast size dug up in England.

LETTER I.

From Francis Biddulph, Esq. to Strickland Mannock, Esq.

DEAR SIR,

Burton, Sussex, Dec. 24, 1740.

YOU may depend on it for certain that the bones of an elephant were found here. They were nine feet deep in the ground, and discovered in July last by some workmen digging a trench in our park; and by the appearance and disposition of the earth, all people judged it had never been opened.

The first thing discovered was a large tooth, seven feet six inches in length, and, as it lay in the ground, was whole and entire, but in taking up, it broke all to pieces.

After this, several more were found in carrying on the trench, particularly the fellow to the beforementioned ivory tooth, exactly of the same length; which being taken up with more care, is now to be seen, though both ends were broken off; also two more shorter tusks of about three feet in length; a thigh bone forty inches long, and thirty-one inches round in the thickest part.

There were several other bones, as the knee-pan; but the most perfect of all was one of the grinders not in the least decayed, with part of the jaw-bone, which together weighed above 14 pounds; the upper part of the tooth, where it meets its opposite, was six inches and a half long, and three inches broad. There were several other bones, not here mentioned.

But what is very remarkable is, that these teeth, bones, &c. did not lie close together, as one might suppose those of a skeleton to do, but at some distance asunder; and the larger tusks were full twenty feet apart.

The Rev. Dr. Langwith, minister of Petworth, has most of them, excepting one of the largest tusks, and one large bone. He was here at taking them up, and reasonably concludes, they were not thrown in by hand, but buried in the universal deluge,

P.S. In the past hard winter there was killed a swan at Emsworth, between Chichester and Portsmouth, lying on a creek of the sea, that had a ring round its neck, with the King of Denmark's arms on it.

LETTER II.

From Mannock Strickland, Esq. to ****.

April 4, 1741.

A FEW months after the foregoing letter was written, being near Mr. Biddulph's, I paid him a visit, where I saw the greatest part of one of the great teeth: it was seven feet and half a long; and at Dr. Langwith's I saw the other, with the rest of the bones mentioned in Mr. Biddulph's letter, all things agreeing exactly with his descriptions. I saw also the pit it was digged out of, and observed the various strata, which run parallel, and had never been disturbed.

Within a quarter of a mile south runs a vast mountainous ridge of hills, called the South Downs of Burton Hills, from the name of the parish Mr. Biddulph lives in.

Extract of Letter III. from a Rev. Clergyman to Peter Collinson, Esq. F. R.S.

Bristol, October 23, 1756.

-I had also forgot to tell you of a noble acquisition, since my tour to Wales. A gentleman who was digging upon a high hill near Mendip, for ochre and ore, found at the depth of 52 fathom, or 315 and half feet (as he measured himself by direct line) four teeth, not tusks, of a large elephant (which I think is the whole number the creature has) and two thigh-bones, with part of the head; all extremely well preserved; for they lay in a bed of ochre, which I could easily wash off. When they were brought to me, every crevice was filled with the ochre, and as I washed it off from the outside, a most beautiful white appeared; and they make a fine show in my cabinet. I propose going down into the pit myself soon; for the men have left several small pieces behind, which they did not think worth bringing up, and I make no doubt, if that be the case, but I shall procure the whole, or great part of the animal.

I have, also, since I saw you, got part of an immensely large stag's horn, undoubtedly fossil, dug up ten miles from Bristol.

Observations by P. C.

IN England the teeth and bones of elephants have been often found fossil; and yet it is allowed on all hands, that so many elephants were never brought hither by men, as have been dug up.

In particular, besides the above accounts, I had a large grinder from Norfolk, which was found with other teeth and bones.

From Mersey Island in Essex, was sent me a large grinder, and part of a thigh-bone; these were found with the entire skeleton, which was destroyed by the country people.

Mr. John Luffkin in Philos. Transact. No. 274, mentions bones and teeth of an elephant found near Harwich in Essex.

Mr. Somner, in Phil. Transact. No. 272, mentions an elephant found at Chartam, near Canterbury: the teeth were all grinders, four in number.

Dr. Woodward mentions two large tusks of an elephant, found at Bowden Parva, in Northamptonshire. He had besides several pieces of elephants teeth dug up in a gravel pit at Islington.

Unless we allow Dr. Woodward's hypothesis of the deuge, it is difficult to conceive how the teeth, bones, &c. of this vast animal came to be found so frequently in this island.

The Romans were the only people who could bring any to intimidate the Britons in their wars: but we have not the least account of any such thing.

1757, May.

MR. URBAN,

IN your Magazine for May, we have three letters communicated by the ingenious Peter Collinson, Esq. F. R. S. giving an account of bones of elephants found at different places in Sussex, Essex, and near Canterbury; wherein that gentleman observes that "the Romans were the only people who could bring any elephants to intimidate the Britons in their wars;" which indeed is true; and we find that in fact elephants where brought over by the Romans. In Polyænus's Stratagems we find a victory gained by the Romans over the Britons by means of an elephant. Cæsar," says that author," in Britain attempted to pass a great river, (supposed the Thames) Casolaunus, (in Cæsar Čassivellaunus) king of the Eritons, opposed his passage with a large

body of horse and chariots. Cæsar had in his company a vastly large elephant (μesos iepas) a creature before that time unknown to the Britons. This elephant he fenced with an iron coat of mail, built a large turret on it, and putting up bowmen and slingers, ordered them to pass first into the stream. The Britons were dismayed at the sight of such an unknown and monstrous beast, (ἆορατον κ' ὑπερφυες θηριον) they fled, therefore, with their horses and chariots, and the Romans passed the river without opposition, terrifying their enemies by this single creature." Cæsar, in his Commentaries, it is likely, omitted this account, thinking that the mention of it would detract from the honour of his conquests, since it could be no merit to conquer a people who ran away from his elephant, rather than from his troops.

Hence we may collect, 1. That an elephant was in Casar's retinue, and that the Romans knew, that a conquest had been gained by it.

2. That it is reasonable to suppose, that as they reaped such advantage from one elephant, they would bring over more of those animals with them.

3. That as the Roman conquests were chiefly about Sussex, Essex, and Kent, it is most likely that the bones of those creatures should be found in those counties.

It cannot be proved, indeed, that these bones have not lain ever since the general flood; but an historical truth is, in my opinion, preferable to any hypothesis whatsoever. J. COLERIDGE.

1757, July.

MR. URBAN,

Kastinskoi on the Don, Dec. 5, O. S. 1784.

IN the neighbourhood of this town, which is about 30 versts from Voronetch, on the brink of the river Don, are found a vast number of bones, of a very large size, dispersed about in the greatest disorder. They consist of teeth, jawbones, ribs, spinal vertebræ, the os pubis, hip-bones, tibia, &c. not at all petrified, but in their natural state, only somewhat decomposed by the depredations of time. They are found in a space nearly three ells in depth, and about forty fathoms in length. I called together some boors that were at work at a distance, and gave them a few copeeks for digging a couple of arshines in depth (i. e. four feet and a half) farther upon the bank of the river; but nothing of the kind appeared. And from repeated trials made by others, we may conclude, that not the slightest vestige of similar bones

is to be perceived either above or below the before-mentioned part of the river. Now, how has it come to pass that these bones have been accumulated and circumscribed within so small a space of ground? By what singular event has this spot been made the receptacle of so enormous a quantity? What man soever, that has seen the skeletons of elephants, would hesitate a moment to pronounce, that these bones at Kastinskoi are the bones of that animal? The like are found in different parts of Russia, and especially in Siberia. And it is above all things to be remarked, that they are commonly, not to say always, found on the very brink of rivers.

We often meet with difficulties that throw a damp on all inquiry, and seem immediately to strike us as beyond the utmost efforts of the human mind to solve. There are others which seem to solicit our research, by affording several data from whence we may set out. From what I have laid down above, the present seems to be of the latter kind; and your readers will probably be more inclined to agree with me, when they have perused what I have to offer them on the subject. Such reasonable conclusions as any of them will please to draw, I shall be glad to see; and, having all circumstances faithfully laid before them, they will be as well enabled to reason on the matter as if they were "pon the spot. We are so used to the discussion, that it grows vapid on our hands; therefore those to whom it comes with the attractions of novelty are now most likely to hit upon a true solution.

The question that presents itself at setting out is:Are we to attribute the appearance of such fossil bones in" these parts to some general revolution our globe has undergone in times extremely remote; or to some particular and local event? It is very possible that these of the Don, and those of Siberia, may have been produced by the same cause. Will it be allowed as probable, that great troops of elephants, forced by a certain imminent danger to leave their natal soil, were reduced to perish in some country more or less remote, more or less to the north or to the south? When we consider the vicinity of Persia, does not that idea come in aid of the suggestion as to the bones of elephants on the banks of the Don? And what shall hinder us then from supposing that other troops of these animals may have ventured farther to the north, where they found that death they endeavoured to avoid at home? That the banks of rivers should be their only cemeteries, may be explained from the ravages occasioned by inundations, which may have left their carcases en these spots.