370 
plements, we find the entry, "Bipeimis, twibille, rel stan-ocx," 
literally a twibill or stone-ax ; while a third enumerates, 
under the head of agricultural implements, "Bipennis, stan-ex," 
a stone ax. It is quite clear from this that our ancestors, as 
late as the beginning of the eleventh century, were well 
acquainted with the use of stone axes and stone bills. More- 
over, I think that a careful consideration of a great number 
of the earlier specimens of these stone implements will show 
that many of them must not only have been formed with 
tools made of metal, but that many of them are also evident 
imitations of the forms of metal implements. As I began 
by observing, I do not deny that there was a time when men 
had no better material to form their weapons and cutting 
or hammering tools than stone, but I deny altogether that 
the use of stone for such purposes was restricted to that 
period, or that you can judge by the form or character of any 
particular implement made of stone, to what particular 
period it belongs. 
Second. — The period of bronze has to encounter still more 
serious objections. I deny that there is any authority, or 
any reason, for stating that the use of bronze preceded that 
of iron, especially in countries like ours, where iron is 
abundant and readily obtained. I have the printed autho- 
rity of my friend Dr. Percy for stating that iron is the 
easiest of all metals to smelt into a malleable condition, 
while bronze requires the far more difficult and complicated 
process of smelting copper as well as that of smelting 
tin, and also the knowledge of moulding and casting. 
We have, moreover, to the contrary the assertion 
of a contemporary, who had every opportunity of ascer- 
taining the truth of what he stated, and who was not 
in the habit of speaking loosely. In his final invasion of 
Britain in the year 55 before Christ, when he reduced the 
states with which he came in contact to at least temporary 
