28 
put forward as to there being a broad line of distinction to be drawn between 
implements found in the gravel and those that belong to the Neolithic, or 
surface period ; but I must say that I do not see such a marvellous difference 
as he sees in the character of the chipping of the two periods. It is true 
that the chipping of the earlier period is such as we might ordinarily expect 
from man in a low degree of civilization ; but, occasionally, in the older 
deposits, we find instruments as beautifully chipped at the edges as those of 
the later period ; while, on the other hand, in the Neolithic, or surface 
period, we occasionally find instruments as rudely, or even more rudely 
chipped, than many of those which belong to the gravel, or the Palaeo- 
lithic period. It is but reasonable to suppose that where a flint was 
taken merely to serve some temporary purpose, the point, or edge, was 
just chipped into form, and that when it had served the object for which 
it was intended, it was thrown aside as no longer of any use, in the same way 
as, up to within the last twenty or thirty years, flints used to be taken and 
roughly chipped into form, in order to be placed in the tinder-box to serve 
for obtaining alight in the morning ; and I have no doubt that many of these 
roughly-chipped flints do belong to the “ strike-a-light ” period. I have here 
two° implements chipped in the same manner, so that Mr. Michell would 
say there is no difference traceable in them. One is of the Palaeolithic period, 
and is, I conclude, intended to be used at the point, and the other is a hatchet 
of the Neolithic period, dexterously ground to an edge at one end. I think 
it would be impossible to get two implements presenting more precisely the 
period are formed by the process of chipping only ; no single instance of 
finishing them by artificial rubbing has been observed. During the Neolithic 
period some of the flint and stone implements, such as hatchets and axes, 
after having been chipped into shape, were finished by artificial rubbing or 
polishing, whilst many others, such as arrow-heads and scrapers, were still 
formed by the process of flaking and chipping only. The implements of the 
Palaeolithic differ greatly in form from those of the Neolithic period. No 
implements of characteristic Neolithic types have been found under circum- 
stances enabling us to assign them to the Palaeolithic period, but the reverse 
cannot be asserted, although cases are rare. (Flint Chips, by Stevens, p. 34.) 
Dr. Dawson, in his Earth and Man, says: — “ In England all before the 
Homan invasion is prehistoric ; the evidence of this period is chiefly geo- 
logical in character ; the prehistoric men are essentially fossils ; we know of 
them merely from what can be learned from their bones and implements 
embedded in the earth, or caverns ; for the origin of these the antiquary goes 
to the geologist, and imitates him in arranging his human fossils under 
such names as the ‘ Palaeolithic,’ or period of rude stone implements [to 
some this particular definition has seemed scarce satifactory. — Ed.] ; the 
1 Neolithic,’ or period of polished stone implements ; the Bronze period, 
and the Iron period ; though inasmuch as the higher and lower state of the 
arts seem always to have coexisted, and the time involved is comparatively 
short, these periods are of less value than those of geology. In Britain, the 
Iron age is mainly historic, the Bronze goes back to the time of early Phoe- 
nician°trade, and the Stone reaches further back. In Western Asia, the 
Bronze and Iron ages are 2,000 years earlier than in Britain, while in America, 
the Paleolithic age of chipped stone implements still continues.”— [Ed.] 
