612 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1888. 



Enough Las been said to demoustrate that the paleolithic implements 

 of this epoch belong to one general type. Their similarity of material, 

 mode of manufacture, and general appearance all testify thereto. 

 While there is this similarity they are not copied one from another. 

 Each one has an individuality, yet they can be recognized as belonging 

 to a common family and having a common origin. In this manner, 

 and for these reasons, a person acquainted with them, or who has had 

 sufficient experience, will be able to recognize a Chellian implement 

 independent of its locality or its associations. This knowledge comes 

 only from experience, but it is the same experience by which the Ameri- 

 can archgeologist recognizes the genuineness of the arrow or spear 

 head, the polished stone hatchet, Indian pipe, and similar objects, and 

 is fairly able to assign them to their proper localities. 



The following paragraphs, relating to the differences in form between 

 paleolithic and neolithic implements, may be found of interest: 



A glance at the stone impleaients hitherto discovered in the river drift, whether of 

 England or France, will at once show how different in character they are, as a whole, 

 from those of the neolithic period, excepting, of course, mere flakes, and implements 

 made from them, and simple blocks and hammer-stones. So far as we at present 

 know, not a single implement from the river drift has been sharpened by grinding or 

 polishing, though, of course, it would be unsafe to affirm that such a process was un- 

 known at the time when they were in use. With the unpolished implements of the 

 neolithic period, which most nearly approach those of the paleolithic in form, it will, 

 as a rule, be found that the former are intended for cutting at the broader end, and 

 the latter at the narrow or more pointed end. Even in the nature of the chipping a 

 practiced observer will, inmost instances, discern a difference. 



When first treating of the character of these instruments (in the Arch«eologia, now 

 thirteen years ago), I pointed out these differences between the implements of the 

 two periods as being marked and distinct; and though since that time, from our 

 knowledge of the form and character of the stone implements of both periods having 

 been much enlarged, some few exceptions may be made to a too sweeping assertion 

 of the distinctions between the two classes, yet, on the whole, I think they have been 

 fully sustained. 



Unground flint implements, with a sharp point and a thick truncated butt, and, 

 in fact, what I have termed tongue-shaped in form, are, for instance, no longer con- 

 fiiied to the drift, but have been found by myself, with polished implements, on tho 

 shores of Lough Neagh, in Ireland; and yet, though analogous in form, they differ 

 in the character of the workmanship, and in their proportions from those from the 

 gravel. The difference is such that, though possibly a single specimen might pass 

 muster as of paleolithic form, yet a group of three or four would at once strike an 

 experienced eye as presenting other characteristics. 



In the same manner some of the roughly chipped specimens from Cissbury and 

 elsewhere — such, for instance, as Fig. 28* — appear to be of the tongue-shaped type, 

 or like other river -drift forms. These are, however, exceptional in character, and as 

 their finding appears to be confined to the sites of manufactories of flint implements, 

 where a very large proportion of the specimens found are merely " wasters " produced 

 in the manufacture, it is doubtful how they are to be regarded as finished tools. 



On this subject of the difference in character between the paleolithic and neolithic 

 forms I have been severely taken to task by M. Zinck, in the Proceedings of the So- 

 ciety of Northern Antiquaries of Copenhagen, who has figured several Danish neo- 

 lithic specimens in juxtaposition with some of my own figures of implements from the 

 drift. In many cases, however, the comparison is made bet'^een implements of very 



* Ancient Stone Implements, p. 74. 



