222 MR. W. G. CLARKE ON NORFOLK FLINT IMPLEMENTS. 
a hatchet 7 in. long by 3J at the widest part, the original 
crust forming a handle. It is worked at the end, and to a 
length of 5 in. on one side, while on the other there is hardly 
any chipping. 
III. NEOLITHIC. 
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the relationship 
of Paleolithic and Neolithic man, as to whether the one was 
a direct descendant of the other, or whether Neolithic man 
was an invader who came some time after his prototype had 
disappeared. In England there appears to be a gap between 
the two periods, but on the Continent the presumed hiatus 
has been bridged over. If we accept the longer estimate of 
the duration of the Neolithic Age, which is now becoming 
more generally adopted by archaeologists, in the period from 
22,000 to 2.000 b . c . it is most probable that there would be 
considerable differences in the skill of the flint-workers. 
But while excellent classifications of the implements of the 
Paleolithic period have been attempted, little has at present 
been done with those of the Neolithic Age. Professor 
Doigneau has* divided it into two periods, the Campignien 
and Robenhausien ; the implements of the former characterised 
by a resemblance to Paleolithic forms, by the “ tranchet ” 
and the double-ended axe ; the latter by the polishing and 
perfecting of the implements, and a great increase in the 
number of types. In England we seem to have got little 
further than the suggestion of Messrs. M. A. C. Hinton and 
A. S. Kennard,f who place implements of the Cissbury type 
as next to the most recent Paleoliths in the Lower Thames 
Valley. In Norfolk it is, I think, possible to distinguish four 
classes of Neolithic flint implements, although supposing that 
they represent successive stages in the evolution of Iberian 
culture, it is extremely probable that they overlap, and 
accurate classification is thus rendered additionally difficult. 
As a preliminary classification I should suggest a division of 
* 1 Nos Ancetres Primitifs,’ Paris, 1905, p. 37. 
t ‘ Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association,’ vol. xix. part ii. 
