225 
was observed by Dr. Mantell, in tbe Isle of Wight, that most of the flints 
were crushed in situ, and he (Mr. Whitley) had himself taken out of a chalk- 
pit near Eastbourne, eight feet from the surface, a flint shattered in situ, 
which, when' dug out, fell to pieces in his hand, and gave him three beautiful 
cores, ’which, looked as though flakes had been struck from off them. 
The Chairman said the flint flakes were exceedingly different m character 
from the unquestionable flints of the Neolithic age. He had seen the finest 
collection of Neolithic flints in the world, at Copenhagan, where there were 
600 or 700 hammer-heads and as many gouges and chisels of flint, the 
chisels having flat and the gouges curved edges, and there was also a collec- 
tion of rounded stones which had evidently been used for sharpening the 
gouaes ; there could be no question that such implements had been made 
by the hand of man, but the stones which formed the subject of the present 
paper were of a totally different character. 
Mr J T. Frame mentioned that there was a very fine collection of stone 
implements’ exhibited at Salisbury, and along with them was a collection of 
modern flint implements manufactured by that clever imposter, “ Flint Jack. 
Mr. J. Rend all mentioned that Sir Charles Lyell, in one of his books, 
quoted Professor Ramsay as saying, with reference to the flints found m 
France, that after twenty years’ experience in such matters he was convinced 
they were manufactured by man. He (Mr. Rendall) was at a loss to know 
on what evidence that conclusion was formed. . _ 
Mr. Whitley said he had been three times to see the flints in the valley 
of the Somme, and the flint hatchets were so abundant that he brought 
away thirty in a hamper, and any one could get as many as he chose. It 
was certainly true that many of them were so symmetrical as to present 
an appearance of artificial work ; but these could be traced down through 
every grade of form to that of rough gravel. 
Mr. J. Jeremiah wished to know if Mr. Whitley inferred an argument 
against the alleged antiquity of man, notwithstanding all the evidence hitherto 
published in favour of such a theory. As to the flint flakes, if they were not 
made by man, how came they to be so often accepted by scientific men as 
of human origin ? Such flakes had been found along with the sculptured 
tusks and bones of animals. In Kent’s Cave, where Mr. Pengelly had found 
a bone needle under stalagmite, there was a well-known boss which bore 
the date 1688, and when that was described in the last century, it was covered 
with a film of limestone, which film had not perceptibly increased in thick- 
ness since then. Assuming the date to have been incised in 1688, and the 
rate at which the limestone deposit accumulated so small, was it possible to 
doubt the great antiquity of man, when, beneath the floor of the cave, remains 
had been found which had been accepted by all archaeologists as of human 
origin? Whether" man was contemporaneous with the mammoth and the 
cave bear in this country or not, it appeared certain that he was in 
France. 
Captain F. Petrie said that, amongst others, Professor T. Rupert Jones, the 
editor of that valuable work on the Archaeology and Palaeontology of Southern 
