104 S. H. Warren — Age of Stone Implements. 



while they lie in place in their beds, and these chips will then be no 

 evidence of derivation. This possibility of error must be carefully 

 guarded against. Chipping produced in this way has, in general, 

 certain characters by which it may be distinguished, as I hope to 

 show very shortly. And, in addition, if these chips were made in 

 the bed in which the flint lay up to the time it was discovered, they 

 will not be abraded and water- worn as they are when the flint is 

 truly derived. 



To satisfy the requirements of clear proof, these contemporary 

 and derived implements must have been buried together in a bed of 

 proved age. With regard to Palgeolithic implements found on the 

 surface of the ground, little can be inferred as to their relative age ; 

 except, more or less doubtfully according to circumstances, by 

 a comparison of their types with those where stratigraphical evidence 

 is obtainable. The evidence of later fractures on patinated flints is 

 obviously inapplicable to implements found on the surface, for the 

 age of these later fractures cannot be ascertained, except, perhaps, 

 in cases of re-working. But where a variety of implements are 

 found together on the surface, and the deeply patinated forms are 

 uniformly of Palaeolithic type, while those not so patinated are of 

 Neolithic type, I think one may be perfectly safe in referring the 

 former to some part of the Palseolithic Period. 



Sir Henry Howorth,' in a recent number of this Magazine, has 

 referred to Dr. H. 0. Forbes'^ unfavourable conclusions as to the 

 presumed Palasolithic age of certain Egyptian implements. But one 

 cannot feel assured that the ebauches or ' wasters ' of the com- 

 paratively recent flint workshops, even though some of them are of 

 Palaeolithic form and much patinated, are really the same as the 

 presumed Paleeolithic implements spread over the surface of the 

 desert. Such old forms occur also in company with Neolithic 

 remains in England. One can only judge the age of surface 

 implements by the facies of a considerable number that appear to 

 be in undoubted association with each other. And so far as one may 

 judge from the accounts of those who have collected in the district, 

 the general facies of the implements in dispute is pretty clearly 

 Palgeolithic. 



The Evidence of Mineral Condition applied to the 

 EivER Drifts. 



Almost everywhere where Paleolithic implements have been 

 collected with sufficient care, stratigraphical evidence, in one form 

 or another, is forthcoming to indicate differences in age and a certain 

 definite succession. 



If we turn to the so-called high-level gravels of our river valleys, 

 we find, for instance, at Stoke Newington : ^ a derived series, often, 

 but not always, with an ochreous patina (P. 30-40) ; a series 

 abraded to some extent, but not derived (P. 55-60) ; and an 



1 Geol. Mag., August, 1901, pp. 337-344. 



2 Bull. Liverpool Museums, 1900, vol. ii, pp. 77-115 ; 1901, vol. iii, pp. 48-61. 



3 "Worthington G. Smith : " Man the Primeval Savage," 1894, p. 189 et seq. 



