1894. PLATEAU MAN IN KENT. 261 



Professor's papers on this subject, when the old adage " history repeats 

 itself" was once more verified ; for assuredly the Sonime finds were 

 never scouted with such contempt as were the poor plateau tools. 

 It is, perhaps, only right to say that we were among the majority. 

 We remember well the impression made upon us by a specimen, 

 which the Professor afterwards figured [Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, 

 vol. xlvii., pi. viii., fig. 4) ; but even from this we admit we were 

 obliged to withhold our assent, and we should think none the less of 

 any who did the same in the absence of seeing a series of these things. 

 Fig. 3 shows this to be simply a naturally broken piece of flint with 

 the bark on one side, the right top edge being also a natural break, 

 while any of the flakes struck from the other part are such as might, 

 under exceptional circumstances, be produced in the vicissitudes of 

 gravel making. But, upon closer examination, we notice that the 

 whole of the left edge is worked from the flat side, and that it was 

 formed by some score of blows. Moreover, we see that the resulting 

 edge, till it reaches the butt, lies all in the same plane, and is at a 

 constant angle to the flat side, which implies that every blow 

 must have been administered at the same angle to the surface struck. 

 Anyone who has had a few years' practice in the working of flint 

 would readily admit that this flint was held in the right hand and the 

 blows administered with the left. Further, when we come to the 

 butt, we find that a slight twist exists in the flint, and, accommo- 

 dating it to the grip of the hand, changes the angle at which the 

 blows were received ; consequently the rest of the flakes came off at a 

 lower angle. Now arises the question of mathematical probabilities 

 and the possibilities of " Nature " working in this manner. Could 

 natural forces have administered all these blows on one side, at each 

 time in the right place, when the whole surface of the flint was 

 exposed, and on each occasion at the right angle although there were 

 180 degrees to choose from? Could natural forces have maintained 

 the blows at a constant angle from the point of the implement till 

 the butt was reached, and then have maintained them at another 

 angle all round the butt ? Would all the blows have been struck 

 from the flat side, except when a prominence occurred, and have then 

 been struck from the other side ? Finally, would they have attacked 

 the projecting ridge on the top right edge, with the result of turning 

 out a usable implement, however rough ? The improbability of such 

 a coincidence of natural blows is so extreme, that though we may 

 regard the shape of this stone as three-parts the v/ork of Nature, we 

 are obliged to ascribe the remaining part to the agency of man. 



That Nature suggested this outhne to man, or, in other words, 

 that man discovered it nearly or quite at hand, we have not the slightest 

 doubt. In Fig. 2 we have an example with even less work, but 

 when placed with the others, its position in the series is evident. We 

 have but little faith as a rule in illustrations of these rude forms ; the 

 specimens must be seen, and the physical properties of flint, the laws 



