4 Schwartz & Beevor, Daw)i of Hiunan Intention. 



{a) Evidence of choice of material. A selection and 

 utilisation of a fragment of stone suitable and 

 sufficient in shape and character as a tool for a 

 specific class of work. 



{b) Evidence of wear. Evidence of specific work per- 

 formed, as shown by the conformability of the 

 traces left upon the tool with those due to the 

 class of work for which the tool was intended 

 under (<■?). 



(<:) Evidence of Iiandling. The adaptability of the 

 tool for prehension and the dressing off of 

 excrescences and the intentional blunting of 

 certain sharp edges in conformity with the 

 design of the tool as under {a). 



(d) Evidence of Sharpoiing. The occurrence of 



secondary working or minor flaking on one side 

 of the edge (for the purpose of giving a new 

 edge to a blunt tool), identical in character with 

 that found on accepted Palaeolithic and Neolithic 

 forms, and conformable with the design of the 

 tool as under {a). 



(e) Evidence of association with allied types. The 



presence in a given stratigraphical position of 



the principal fundamental classes of tool already 



referred to, in association with the tool under 



consideration. 



(y") Evidence from Prehistory and Anthropology. The 



persistence of the type of tool throughout the 



stone age and its conformability with the type 



used by the most primitive tribes within the 



memory of man. 



(14) It is not to be expected that every tool should 



satisfy the whole of the above conditions — for example, a 



hammer stone would not necessarily comply with {c), as 



