48 BULLETIN OF THE LIVERPOOL MUSEUMS. 
(2) TurNER, Hdin. Med. Jour., August, 1865, p. 133. 
(3) WrRany, Prager Vierteljahrschrift, part 2, 1866; Jour. of Anat. and 
Phys., 1867, vol. i. p. 152. 
(4) Broca, Bulletin de la Societé d Anthropologie de Paris, March, 1875. 
(5) Broca, ibid., May, 1875. 
(6) Humpury, The Human Skeleton, p. 243. 
(7) GREIG, Jour. of Anat. and Phys., vol. xxvi. p. 187. 
(8) Greic, Brit. Med. Jour., vol. i., 1899, Report; Edin. Medico. Chir. 
Soc., 1899. 
(9) SHEPHERD, Jour. of Anat. and Phys., 1893, vol. xxvii. p. 501. 
(10) Mater, Virchow’s Archiv, vol. vil. p. 338. 
(11) Humpury, Jour. of Anat. and Phys., 1874, vol. viii. p. 136. 
(12) Munro, Prehistoric Problems, 1897, Blackwood. 
The Age of the Surface Flint Implements of 
Egypt and Somaliland. 
By Henry O. Fores, LL.D. 
In a previous Bulletin (vol. ii. p. 76) I described the collection of flint im- 
plements, now in the Mayer Museum, made in Egypt by Mr. H. W. Seton- 
Karr, and remarked at the same time also on others gathered by him in 
Somaliland. 
My views have been honoured by criticism and remark in several publica- 
tions, and also in letters by well-known archeological authorities, addressed 
to me personally, in which some of my critics assent and some dissent from 
my opinions. The correction of some errors and misunderstandings into 
which I have fallen, as well as the importance of the statements thus received 
or published—for which I desire to thank the writers very cordially—eall for 
recognition, adjustment, or reply in these pages in which the original Paper 
appeared. 
In order that the reader may have the main conclusions of my former 
article before him, I repeat here the sentences in which I summed up my 
observations :—“To sum up these remarks,” I said, “I have described with 
some minuteness the implements, with the localities where they were found 
in the Wady el* Sheikh, because of the magnitude of the collection and the 
conditions under which it was discovered. I have, by comparing these flints 
with others dated by Professor Petrie’s labours, indicated the age to which 
they probably belong as the XIIth dynasty, going back perhaps, but not 
probably, to the [Vth dynasty, but also with great likelihood coming down 
to a much more recent date, as the views of the present condition of the 
shafts (on p. 104) suggest. I have shown that various depths of ‘onic 
tinting’ (even to the deepest ‘Paleolithic’ patina) and.a soft, polished 
surface (both of which are characters long depended on as sure marks of 
flints of high antiquity) have been acquired far within the historic period ; 
that implements which would unhesitatingly be classed as Paleolithic from 
their form, patina, and surface condition, occur in association in the same 
workings with those I have assigned to the XIIth dynasty ; but I can find 

*T find from Prof. Sayce’s letter that e/ Sheikh should be more correctly written 
es Sheikh, 

