25 
on this subject has been placed in the hands of nearly everybody present, and 
as Mr. Michell seems to have adopted almost entirely Mr. Whitley’s views ; 
I will take the four points Mr. Whitley has raised against the artificial 
origin of these Palaeolithic implements. I will put, for the moment, these 
imperfect flakes entirely out of the question, and at once deal with Mr. 
Whitley’s objections. He states, in the first place, that the Palaeolithic im- 
plements are all of flint, and I believe he infers that the fractures upon them 
are all the result of a natural agency acting on some property belonging to 
the flint. When I say that it is not the case that all these Palaeolithic imple- 
ments are of flint, but that they are found chipped out of other materials, 
and yet that they are still of analogous forms to those which are made of 
flint, the argument that they are attributable to the natural fracture of flint 
from ordinary causes must, I think, fall to the ground. I have here two 
specimens that are almost identical in form and size, and that are chipped in 
the same manner ; but one of them is of flint, while the other is of felsite, or 
greenstone.* One of them was found at St. Acheul, and the other in the 
neighbourhood of Brandon. I have also an implement of quartzite from the 
Madras Presidency, as well as other implements made of three different 
materials, each breaking in a different manner, but all wrought into analogous 
forms, and consequently evidencing that they must be the result of human 
workmanship. In the second place, I am told that the implements are all of 
one type, and that therefore they must be due to natural causes.t I cannot 
imagine on what grounds Mr. Whitley makes such an assertion as this, for to 
maintain that the two implements I have here are of one type might, I 
think, be fairly characterized as a monstrous perversion of terms. Mr. Michell, 
indeed, goes so far as to acknowledge that there are two types, and others 
are able to carry them further ; but no doubt there is a gradation observable 
between one type and another, and this fact, to my mind, is sufficient to 
show that they are the result of workmanship applied in a certain direction, 
sometimes forming an oval cutting tool, and sometimes a sharp cutting 
instrument of a different shape, each being applied to a different purpose. 
So much, then, with regard to the implements being all of one type. Here 
is another form of implement with a cutting edge at the side (producing it), and 
here is a large broad flake with a simple face on one side, showing the cone, 
or bulb of percussion, while the other side shows the results of a series of 
blows, each of them producing a separate facet. Then, again, Mr. Whitley 
* The implements produced by Mr. Evans were of the Neolithic period. 
Mr. Michell (whom I questioned), and every one in the room recognized 
them as beautiful specimens of workmanship, totally different in character 
from the flakes, the subject of Mr. Whitley’s and Mr. Michell s paper. Mr. 
Evans, and especially Dr. Carpenter, seem to have considered that Mr. Michell 
desired to class such implements with the flint flakes of the Drift, m which 
they were entirely mistaken, and it is to be regretted that Mr. Michell did 
not correct this misapprehension. — [E d.] 
t This remark appears to have been made by Mr. Whitley with regard to 
the flakes . — [Ed.] 
