26 
says that the flint implements which have been found, show no marks of 
having been used by man. Now, Mr. .Whitley has done me the honour to 
quote my book on one or two occasions, but if he had looked into it a little 
further than he appears to have done, he would have seen instance after in- 
stance in which there are distinct marks of these implements having been 
worn by use on the edges. X state that in nearly all the implements of one par- 
ticular type there are, on the side of the bulb, marks where the implements 
have been used for the cutting or scraping some hard substance, and it you 
will take a newly-wrought flint and use it to scrape bone, you will produce 
upon it precisely similar marks of wear to those which you see here (showing 
a specimen). In nearly all the cases in which the implements are discovered 
in beds of clay or sand, instead of being found in the gravel, in the trans- 
port of which their edges are rolled by the action of the surrounding stones, 
so that it is difficult to trace the signs of actual wear, it is rather the excep- 
tion than the rule that you should find on their edges no marks of wear 
This, to my mind, is a strong argument in favour of the conclusion that 
they must have been of human origin; for you could hardly say that the 
men who existed in those early times would have been able to select a suffi- 
cient number of implements naturally formed. Nor can we suppose that the 
same natural causes which might lead to the fracture of flints m this peculiar 
way, when embedded among other hard substances, such as gravel, would 
lead to their being fractured in precisely the same manner when embedded 
in clay, especially where no splinters are found near them. Another argu- 
ment used by Mr. Whitley is that the implements are. found in such i great 
numbers. As I have already explained, the wonder is not so much tha 
they are found in such large numbers, but that we do not find more of them 
But let us take the case on this ground alone. What does it prove 1 Why 
that they must of necessity be of artificial origin, because it is only in gravels 
of a certain position and age, and associated with a certain description of 
fauna, which is now for the most part extinct, that these implements are 
found. (Hear.) If you search in gravel of an analogous character, bu 
belonging to a different age, you find no implements. As I understand Mr. 
Michell, he holds that in most cases these implements are stained m a 
similar manner to the stones in the gravel among which they are found, and 
is willing to accept the assumption that if they are of human origin they 
are of the same age as the gravel itself. The question, therefore, is, what 
is the real age of the gravel itself? This is a question, however, into 
which I will not now enter, as I have already entered in o 1 e se 
where* But I will point out that in some cases these implements, 
--•Dr. Dawson, in his Earth and Man, propounds the theory, ^ 
i +V10 rrlftrifll npriod the land rose slowly out of the waters, tne clay 
rlpuosits of the glacialwaters being marked over and rearranged by the waves, 
A?the land rose further, its surface was modified by violent rams and streams, 
bv which the valleys were ploughed, plains levelled and overspread by allu- 
vium h and thus iUs difficult to discriminate between the river alluvium o 
