475 
bronze implements, in what are considered as the earliest 
sepulchral tumuli in this island. Stone implements have 
sometimes been found on Roman sites. Douglas found 
one of the stone implements usually called a celt, in a 
Saxon grave, in Greenwich Park. I myself recently took 
from an Anglo-Saxon grave in the Isle of Wight, lying among 
implements of iron, pieces of chipped flint closely resembling 
those met with in the neighbourhood of Bridlington. I believe, 
indeed, that one of the chroniclers of the Norman conquest 
speaks of weapons of stone as used by some of the Anglo- 
Saxon troops at the battle of Hastings. Again, there are two 
circumstances to which I would particularly call your 
attention. Many of these implements in stone must have 
been made with metal tools. This is particularly the 
case with some stone articles of a higher finish. It 
appears to me that even the flint implements can only 
have been chipped with metal, and I suspect, moreover, 
that that metal was iron. Secondly, — it seems to me 
equally evident, that most of these implements in stone 
were really copies of similar implements in metal. The 
stone axe found by Mr. Cape, and engraved in one of the 
accompanying plates, is, I believe, a mere copy of a Roman axe. 
I cannot imagine that any one would have thought of making 
a barb to a fishing hook of flint, unless he had previously 
seen a barbed hook of metal. Nor does it seem any 
more natural that people who were reduced to making 
such articles by chipping them out of flint, should have 
thought of making a barbed arrow-head, when one without 
barbs would have served the purpose equally well, unless 
they took the idea from a model made of some kind of metal, 
and furnished by a more civilized or a richer people. 
Secondly, — with regard to the so-called bronze-period, I 
confess that I see no reason why the use of bronze should 
naturally precede that of iron. I need hardly remark that 
pp 2 
