55 
certainly found in situ deep in the undisturbed drift gravel at Broom, bearing 
authentic marks of human workmanship, or conclusive evidence of having been 
used by man, his pre-glacial existence is as fully proved as if a complete human 
skeleton had been found there. I have often demanded the production of such a 
single witness ; but it has never yet been brought into court, and if it ever 
should be, certainly I will not receive the evidence without a strict cross- 
examination. My friend may, perhaps, on the testimony of an “ expert,” 
produce one or two of his nine pins, but hitherto they have proved to be 
only wooden, speechless bogies. I stand firmly on my adopted, but borrowed, 
motto, “ Time and I against any other two.” 
With the deductions drawn by Mr. Callard from his argumentative and 
able speech, I most entirely agree ; and in reply to his inquiry, I am enabled 
to say, that I have seen no secondary chipping indicative of human work- 
manship on any of the supposed implements which were shown when my 
paper was read, or on those in the Museum at Exeter, which I have carefully 
examined. 
Sir Joseph FAYRERsaid, — “ It is, I confess, difficult to understand how 
the pieces of stone now on the table were thus formed into a shape which 
is so exactly like that which some of the recognised and authenticated 
implements of man have assumed.” This supposed similarity of form in 
stone implements of different ages was just before denied by my friend 
Mr. Callard ; and I agree with him that it does not exist ; and this point of 
difference is again and again pointed out by Sir John Lubbock, who says of 
“ Palaeolithic Implements,” — “ These are all of types which differ consider- 
ably from those which came subsequently into use.”* “ When M. Boucher 
de Perthes’ work was published, the weapons therein described were totally 
unlike any familiar to archaeologists.” + “ They ought to correspond with 
other stone implements of the Stone period. But this is not the case.”J 
In several parts of this discussion it seems to he assumed that I am 
contending against the authenticity of all Stone implements ; this is a 
mistake, and it has often heen used to throw discredit on my researches and 
opinions. 1 pray, therefore, that it may he clearly understood that my 
contention is only against the authenticity of the supposed drift tools of the 
imaginary “ Faloeolithic ” age. And that I have ever firmly held that the 
Stone implements of the ^Neolithic age are as truly the work of man as any 
Sheffield penknife. 
* Intro, to Nilsson’s Stone Age, p. 20. 
t Pre-historic, 1st ed., p. 278. 
X Ihid., p. 279. 
