A STUDY OF PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOLOCT. , 613 



different dimensions, though, by being drawn to different scales, they are made to 

 appear of the same size in the figures; and, in other cases, the specimens engraved 

 are apparently unfinished, or merely wasters thrown away. 



But, even granting that these exceptional instances of resemblance can be found, 

 there is no one who can deny that the general fades of a collection of implements 

 from the river drift, and one from the surface, is totally and entirely distinct. With 

 regard to the Danish stone antiquities, I think I may safely say that I have as ex- 

 tensive a collection of them as any one out of that country ; and, further, that I have 

 more than once examined the collections, both public and private, at Copenhagen, 

 as well as at Stockholm and Lund, and yet that I do not remember to have seen any 

 specimen — unless possibly a mere flake or rough block— which, if placed before me 

 without comment, I should have taken to be paleolithic. 



In most cases, even if a similarity of form should be found to exist, there will be 

 a difference in the character of the surface of the material; the deep staining more 

 especially, and the glossy surface so common on the implements from the gravel, 

 being but rarely met with on those from the surface soil. 



But, tliough, on the whole, so widely differing from the implements of the neo- 

 lithic period, those belonging to paleolithic times show a marvelous correspondence 

 with each other in whatever part of England they are found; and this correspond- 

 ence extends, in an equal degree, to the implements found in the river gravels of 

 France. In illustration of this, Mr. Flower has engraved, side by side, two imple- 

 ments from Thetford and two from St. Acheul, each pair being almost identical 

 botli in shape and size. But what is more remarkable still, this resemblance in form 

 prevails not only with the implements from the river gravels of western Europe, 

 but with those from the laterite beds of southern India. It is true that the material 

 is somewhat different, the Indian implements being formed of compact quartzite 

 instead of flint, and that this circumstance somewhat affects the cliaracter of the 

 fracture and facets, but, so far as general form is concerned, they may be said to be 

 identical with those from the European river-drifts.* 



MOUSTIERIAN EPOCH. 



This is the commencement of the cavern period. Daring this epoch 

 and the two succeeding, man inhabited principally the caverns and 

 rock shelters. While I would not assert that the implements and ob- 

 jects belonging to these epochs are not to be found on the surface and 

 otherwheres, yet it is true that the habitations, the workshops, the 

 residences, the fireplaces, hearths, etc., of these three epochs, are to be 

 found principally in the caverns or under the rock shelter. When 

 Monsieur Reiuach speaks of the epoch of alluvium, he means the epoch 

 prior to this; when he speaks of the period of the caverns, he means 

 these three epochs following. It is entirely i)0ssible that these may 

 have been contemporaneous, that man may have occupied them all 

 at once, to have made and used the implements belonging to these 

 epochs all at one time, and such has been the contention of some emi- 

 nent scientists. But they are not by any means agreed upon that 

 theory or statement. These subdivisions of the cavern period, made 

 by M. de Mortillet, are Moustierian, the Solutrian, and the Madelenian. 



The Moustierian is so named after the Cavern de Moustier, on the 

 river Vezere, Dordogue, France. The typical implements are the 



• Evans: Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain, p. 568, 



