674 ON THE THREE PERIODS KNOWN AS 



stored and stacked in an unfinisliQd state, before being sent out on^ 

 or for, sale. 



One point I should wish here to put upon record, relatively to 

 the excavations at Cissbury. In my paper on ' The Animal Re- 

 mains found at Cissbury,' published in the Journal of the Anthrop. 

 Inst, for July, 1876, vi. p. 22, as also in * British Barrows,' p. 74a 

 (this volume. Articles XVII, XlX), I expressed myself as having 

 been much impressed by what I had seen to the effect that the 

 pitfall, especially as eked out with certain accessories, had counted 

 for a great deal in the economy (if this be not to profane the 

 word) of the Stone Age. In the earlier of the two places referred 

 to, I say : ' Hurdles of gorse probably were arranged on the prin- 

 ciple of the wicker hoops in a decoy, and it is easy to see how, 

 by such a plan, eked out, perhaps, by the firing of heaps of the 

 same useful material, a wild bull, or a herd, might be driven over 

 a pitfall.' In the latter, I say : ' It requires a greater ejffort of 

 imagination on our part to imagine a pack of wild dogs co-operating 

 with priscan men in driving a herd of wild cattle or wild pigs (both 

 of which were represented in the Cissbury Pits) along a track in 

 which a pitfall had been dug and covered over. Still what we 

 know justifies us,' &c. When I wrote these words, I was very 

 distinctly of opinion that the suggestion they contain was, how- 

 ever obvious, yet entirely an original and novel one ; I was rudely, 

 yet not unpleasantly, undeceived a few days ago, when verifying, 

 as it is always well to do by often-quoted lines, the lines of 

 Lucretius, v. 1385. I 'tried back,' as I have heard it expressed 

 elsewhere, to the preceding context, which greatly fascinated me, 

 not only by its grand roll and flow, but also by the singularly clear 

 insight which it gave me into the way in which its author had 

 faced the great problem of ^ Kulturgeschichte.^ In that context I 

 came, to my great surprise, upon two lines, 1^549-1250, which con- 

 tain a suggestion at once half-coinciding with, and half-contradicting 

 my own as just quoted. Lucretius, undoubtedly, can claim priority 

 as to the part of his hypothesis in which he and I agree ; and per- 

 haps I had better not claim originality as to either part of mine ; 

 but this question is of little consequence. Here are the lines of 

 Lucretius, v. 1 249-1 250 :— 



•Nam fovea atque igni prius est venarier ortum 

 Quam sepire plagis saltum canibusque ciere.' 



