47 
should have found their way into one place. The idea that these globular 
bodies were employed as necklace- beads is in a measure justified by the fact 
stated to me by a gentleman formerly in the Indian medical service, and 
who has made many valuable researches into the geology of India, -that 
the inhabitants of Cutch are in the habit of stringing similar things together, 
and wearing them as necklaces. I do not lay any stress upon this, 
but at the same time I do not think that Mr. Whitley, by producing 
three or four specimens of these necklaces made of selected natural 
beads, has altogether disposed of the matter. For myself I do not think 
that the beads alone should be taken as evidence of the existence of man 
at the remote period with which they are identified. 
Mr. Evans.— Mr. Whitley has asked whether marks of wear are found on 
the Paleolithic implements ? I reply that the marks of use found on the 
edges of the flakes and on the edges of the implements discovered in the 
sand-beds are identical in character with the marks on the flints of a much 
more recent period, which have evidently been used for scraping hard 
substances. Mr. Whitley has asked me to point out the sins of which I 
accused him. They were rather sins of omission than sins of commission. He 
has cited the beds of Cissbury-hill and Spiennes as containing large numbers 
of flakes in what he regards as a natural deposit. He ought to know that at 
those places, pits were found to have been sunk into the chalk for the purpose 
of obtaining flints to manufacture into flint implements, and that in those pits 
stag’s-hom pickaxes were found— evidence which he ignores. He should have 
known, too, that implements of a pointed form have been found in Gray’s 
Inn Lane, and that at Hoxne similar implements, regarded as spear-heads 
have been discovered. I, myself, bought one at a sale by auction, labelled 
as a British spear-head, about the human origin of which there could be no 
question. 
Mr. Michell.— At this late hour, I will not detain the meeting long m 
replying to what has been said. I will only direct attention to the two 
crucial tests which I have ventured, although, I fear, very feebly, to bring 
before this meeting. I have spoken of the contrast between the rude chipping, 
as seen in the Drift types, and that which is seen on the javelin and 
spear-heads, as shown even on the worst specimens of the Neolithic imple- 
ments. Taking the Drift flints, you find that the same type prevails through- 
out, and is as patent in the best specimens in the world as in the roughest 
I ever picked up. Examining the specimens in the museums, the flints in 
the beds themselves, and the chipping on shattered flints where the so-called 
implements are found, I say that the evidence is very strong, and, to my 
mind, convincingly so, that this chipping on the Drift flints is natural, and 
not artificial. Compare these again with the specimens belonging to the 
Second Stone period, where the chipping is undoubtedly artificial, and the 
contrast is striking. I have asked artisans and flint-knappers, and even 
“ Flint Jack ” himself, to make something like this Drift chipping, and they 
have told me they could not do it. I believe them. Now, I do say that 
this is something of a test. I ask you to look at the sort of action that takes 
