out of place on dry land. This however indicates a very considerable antiquity, since the site of the ancient city Eborodunum must have been, at that time, entirely covered by the lake, and yet the name, which is of Celtic origin, denotes that there was a town here eyen before the Roman penod. In order, however, to form an idea of the time at which the dwellings at Chamblon were left dry by the retirement of the lake, we must have in the valley a point of determined age, to serve as a term of comparison, and such a point we find in the ancient city of Eburodunum (Yverdon), which was built on a dune extending from Jorat to the Thièle. Between this dune and the lake, on the site at present occupied by the city of Yverdon no traces of Roman antiquities have ever been discovered, from which it is concluded that it was at that period under water. If then we admit that at the close of the fourth century the lake washed the walls of the Castrum Eburodense,we shall have fifteen centuries as the period required to effect this change. The zone thus uncovered in fifteen hundred years is 2500 feet in breadth, and as the piles at Chamblon are at least 5500 feet from the water, it may be inferred that three thousand three hundred years must have elapsed since they were left dry. This Lake-dwelling belonged to the Bronze period, and the date thus obtained, agrees pretty well with that obtained from the examination of the Cone de la Tinière. M. Troyon adds that "rien ne fait soupçonner, pendant l'époque humaine et antérieurement a notre ére, des conditions d'accroisement differentes de celles qui ont eu lieu posterieurement aux Romains; le résultat obténu est même un minimum, vu que la vallée va se rétrécissant du côté du lac et que nous avons admis la présence de celui-ci au pied même d'Eburodunum dans le IVe siècle de l'ère chrétienne, tandis qu'il est probable que la retraite des eaux n'a pas été insensible depuis le moment où les Romains se sent fixés sur ce point."
However this may be, and while freely admitting in how many respects this calculation is open to objection, we may still observe that the result agrees in some measure with that given by the Cone de la Tinière. The ancient history of Greece and Rome, as far as it goes, tends to confirm these dates, since we know that at the time of Homer and Hesiod, arms were, in part at least, made of iron, and as we know that, at a very early period, there was a certain amount of commerce between Helvetia and the shores of the Mediterranean, we can hardly suppose that a metal so immensely important as iron, can have remained unknown in the former country, long after it was generally used throughout the latter.
Still, though we must not conceal from ourselves the imperfection of the archæological record, we need not despair of eventually obtaining some more definite chronology. Our knowledge of primitive antiquity has made an enormous stride in the last ten years, and the future is full of hope. I am glad to hear from M. Troyon that the Swiss archæologists are continuing their labours. They may feel assured that we in England await with interest the results of their investigations.
