1898] A UTHENTICITY OF PL A TEA U IMPLEMENTS 1 1 1 



Stick and sapling (concave) scrapers 



26. Jumper's Heath, Christ Church (D). 



27. Near Amersham, Bucks, 400 ft. contour. 



28. Hordwell Cliff, 60 ft. above sea. 



29. Grange Pit, Hants (D). 



gj- 1 Aylesford Pit, Kent (D). 



Bone-needle-makers 



32. Preston Hill, Shoreham, Kent, 500 ft. contour. 



33. Cockerhurst, Do., 450 ft. do. 



34. Goodberry, near Do., 600 ft. do. 



35. Grange Pit, Rowner, Hants (D). 



36. St Acheul, near Amiens, France (D). 



37. Reigate, S. of L.G.S. Escarpment (N). 



38. Sacramento Valley, Ga., U.S.A. (white quartz, Red Indian). 



Gouges 



39. Shepherd's Barn, 500 ft. contour. 



40. Pakefield, Suffolk (N). 



Flaking tools 



41. Cockerhurst, 450 ft. contour. 



42. Jerkin's Wood, Shoreham, 500 ft. contour. ■ 



43. Cockerhurst, Do., 450 ft. do. 



{N.B. — All except No. 1, front view, are much reduced. The Eoliths figured, 

 except No. 22, passed through Sir Joseph Prestwich's hands and were approved 

 by him.] 



II 



WHEN at a meeting of the British Association an Indian officer 

 suggested that the plateau tools had been brought into 

 their present forms by ice action, it provided a subject for merriment, 

 as things sometimes do at those mixed meetings. But not even the 

 bitterest opposers of the human origin of these things, who would 

 gladly have welcomed any word that could have been urged against 

 them with the slightest resemblance to reason, considered the idea as 

 worthy of a moment's serious consideration. When, however, after 

 a lapse of a few years it is again revived by one like Mr W. 

 Cunnington, whose earlier labours command our admiration, the case 

 becomes different, and one can only regret that he should have 

 descended into the arena so ill-armoured, and with no weapon save 

 four small stones ; and although he at times calls in chemistry, 

 geology and mechanics to his aid, in every case they turn upon him, 

 and it is at their hands he dies. But the most painful features of 

 his paper are his lamentable errors in matters of fact. The case is 

 so wrongly stated that almost every assertion can be met with a flat 

 denial, and as one's desire to be tender and respectful in this would 

 draw out this article to undue length, I propose to conline myself to 

 an examination of his main theory and its terms of statement. 



After reading his own interpretations into the characters pre- 



