BY WALTER R. HARPER. 429 



The foregoing seven specimens should, I think, be classed 

 together and considered separately from the remaining two. 

 Although some are composed of slate, some of sandstone and some 

 of clay, it is plain from the identit}' of the signs of wear at the 

 lower ends that they were all used for the same purpose or in the 

 same manner. Again, the bases are concave in every case, and 

 the decorations are of the same nature and desiijn, for no markings 

 appear on the clay specimens which are not also present on the 

 stone and slate, and none on the slate which are not represented on 

 the stone and clay. In fact, treating the "incomplete arrows" 

 (Nos. 1 and 6) and the "cross-barbs" (No. 6) as variations of the 

 " broad-arrow," we find that, of the three stones on which both 

 the typical markings ( " broad-arrows " and horizontal or perpen- 

 dicular gashes) are engraved, one is slate (No. 1), one is stone 

 (No. 5) and one is clay (No. 7). 



The similarity in decoration, in form of base, and, above all, in 

 signs of wear, is surel}^ sufficient evidence — in the absence of 

 direct proofs to the contrary — that, although fashioned by different 

 hands, of different materials, in widely separated localities — the 

 same ideas, intentions, designs, were responsible for their existence, 

 determined their use and regulated their construction. A good 

 deal depends on this classification, for it is evident that a heavy 

 piece of slate may be put to uses impossible for a piece of clay, and 

 in endeavouring to arrive at any conclusion as to the object for 

 which the " stones " were made, it is necessary to remember this 

 difference of composition. 



The two remaining stones differ from the preceding seven, not 

 only in shape and in the absence of signs of the wear so noticeable 

 on the others, but also in having even bases and practically no 

 decorative markings. It is possible links may be later discovered 

 connecting these with the first series, but for the present I think 

 it better to keep them quite distinct. In this paper I propose to 

 confine myself almost exclusively to the upright stones, but, as no 

 satisfactory explanation has been given as to the use made, of 

 these curious curved specimens, I have thought it advisable to 

 include photographs and descriptions of them. 



