125 
non-finding of palaeolithic implements in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and 
the North of England. I put one of these implements in my pocket, thinking 
that as we were to talk of the subject it would be as well that you should see 
the sort of stones we were to speak about. This implement ( holding one up) 
came from the Somme Valley, and a very good specimen of the flint imple- 
ment it is. The conclusion that palaeolithic man did not reach those 
northern parts is based upon the fact that these implements are not found 
there, and the same argument is adduced with regard to Switzerland, where, 
owing to the altitudes, of course it would be much colder. The conclusion 
is that they are not found there, because the ice kept palaeolithic man out. 
That may be the reason, but we are not tied up to it. There may be 
some other reason, and I am inclined to think there is another reason. 
There is a tendency at the present day to confound those periods which are 
called palaeolithic and neolithic. We get a fair definition given to us, and 
in working it out we depart from it. I should like to read the defini- 
tion, because it would help us on the subject, and because so very much 
depends upon it. Mr. Alfred Wallace, in an address given to the Biological 
Section of the British Association, which met in Glasgow in 1876, says : “As 
we go back metals soon disappear. We find only tools and weapons of 
stone and bone. The stone weapons get ruder and ruder, pottery and then 
bone implements cease to occur, and in the earliest age ( i.e ., the paleo- 
lithic) we find only chipped flints of rude design though still of unmistak- 
able human workmanship.” Now, will you refer to paragraph 22 
“ Now, there is just outside of this Alpine region, near the eastern 
extremity of the Lake of Constance, a station of pakeolithic date, called 
Schussenried. The fauna and flora observed here were Arctic in character, 
and the only remains of the extinct animals were the worked horns of the 
reindeer. These, we are told, with needles of bone, and objects manufactured 
of nephrite, were found ‘ in the glacial clay.’ The pakeolithic hunters had 
advanced up to the margin of the ice ; they left their relics, mingled with 
the remains of Arctic plants, to be buried beneath the glacial clays.” 
I would ask, Why does the author call these hunters paleolithic ? Why 
does he call these relics paleolithic? There is no paleolithic implement 
amongst them. The implements found there, we are told, are needles of bone 
and implements of nephrite, brought from a considerable distance. They are 
not paleolithic implements, and therefore I object to this station being called 
a paleolithic station at all ; it is not a paleolithic station, it is a neolithic 
station. Again, in paragraph 23 : — 
“ There is a cave on the northern frontier of Switzerland, near Schaff hausen, 
which bears the same aspect as Schussenried, and where paleolithic man seems, 
as it were, to hover on the confines of the neolithic age. I refer to the Kess- 
lerloch.” 
But no paleolithic implements are found there. You do find a beautiful 
drawing of a reindeer browsing, but that does not belong to the paleolithic 
age ; and I may mention that in Schussenried there were found pottery 
and a portion of a rope made of the bast of the lime-tree, and also a perforated 
red bead, like coral. These may seem very slight things to mention, but 
VOL. XIII. K 
