Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (19)

[22] For instance, H. B. Woodward, _Geol. of England and Wales_, 2nd ed., 1887, pp. 475-512; J. Prestwich, _Geology_, ii, 1888, pp. 453-4, 469; A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit. Isles_, 1888, pp. 281, 289, 294-6; Sir A. C. Ramsay, _Phys. Geol. and Geogr. of Great Britain_, 6th ed., 1894, pp. 229, 238, 242-3, 246-8, 252, 259, 263, 276; T. G. Bonney, _Ice-Work, Present and Past_, 1896, pp. 121, 277; and Sir A. Geikie, _Text-book of Geology_, 1903, i, 169; ii, 1302-32.

[23] Mr. T. Mellard Reade, in an interesting paper (_Nat. Science_, iii, 1893, pp. 423-35) has argued against the view that these shells were carried up the hill of Moel Tryfaen by a glacier. See also, in support of the theory of a period of extensive submergence, _Geol. Mag._, 1893, pp. 35-7, 104-7; 1896, pp. 488-92; 1897, pp. 229-33.

[24] H. Carvill Lewis, _Papers and Notes_, &c., 1894, pp. 375-6; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1893 (1894), pp. 483-514; _Nature_, Aug. 16, 1906, p. 399; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lxii, 1906, pp. 33, 39. Mr. T. F. Jamieson, the author of the last-named paper, suggests that the submergence may have been confined to the northern part of Scotland.

[25] _Nat. Science_, iv, 1894, p. 472. Cf. _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part i, 1904, p. 82.

[26] Clement Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, 1899, pp. 39-40.

[27] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 253; _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 176.

[28] _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25-6. See p. 19, _infra_.

[29] _Geol. Mag._, 1895, pp. 63-4.

[30] C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 38.

[31] See Sir A. Geikie’s _Text-book of Geology_, ii, 1903, p. 1313. Cf. _Nature_, Aug. 16, 1906, pp. 388-9, 399.

[32] See Sir A. Geikie’s _Text-book of Geology_, ii, 1903, p. 1313.

[33] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1887, pp. 111-2.

[34] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, liv, 1898, pp. 197-227, especially p. 209; _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part i, 1904, p. 83; _Vict. Hist. of ... Durham,_ i, 24. Professor Bonney, however (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lxii, 1906, pp. 491-2, 498), remains unconvinced.

[35] See Mr. G. W. Lamplugh’s opening address, delivered in Section C of the British Association (_Nature_, Aug. 16, 1906, pp. 387-400). Mr. T. F. Jamieson, in a valuable and interesting paper (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lxii, 1906, p. 23), observes that ‘although we have some evidence of more than one recurrence of an ice-sheet in [Aberdeenshire] ... no evidence has hitherto been obtained of warm intervals, further than that which may be inferred from the melting away of the vast mass of ice which preceded and followed the deposition of the Red Clay and the shell-bed at Clava and elsewhere. It must have taken a great deal of heat to melt these enormous masses.’

[36] Is it certain that an elevation of seventy feet would not have been enough to unite Britain with the Continent? For thousands of years the scour of the tides must have been deepening the Channel. [On April 11, 1906, I submitted to Mr. Clement Reid, in a conversation which I had with him at the Geological Museum, the gist of the argument by which I endeavour to show (pp. 20-2, _infra_) that during some part of the Palaeolithic Age Britain must have been continental. He virtually admitted its force, remarking that an elevation of seventy feet would have enabled animals to cross from Gaul to Britain, as the scour of the tides had doubtless deepened the Channel.]

[37] _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp. 37, 38.

[38] _Ib._, p. 41; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xlviii, 1892, pp. 344-61. Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 32.

[39] _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 39. See also _Memoirs Geol. Survey--The Geology of the Country around Cromer_, 1882, p. 90.

[40] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 33; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 22.

[41] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 33-4; _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp. 42-3.

[42] _Report of the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 410-11. Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25-6. Mr. Reid has, however, concluded, from an examination of the palaeolithic deposits at Hitchin (_Proc. Roy. Soc._, lxi, 1897, pp. 40-9, and especially p. 46), as well as at Hoxne, that before the time of the palaeolithic inhabitants of those districts the land had again sunk.

[43] _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 46. Cf. A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit. Isles_, pp. 291-2, 302.

[44] A. R. Wallace, _Island Life_, 1880, pp. 315-17; J. Prestwich, _Geology_, ii, 1888, pp. 523-5. See p. 62, _infra_.

[45] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave-Hunting_, 1874, p. 124; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxv, 1879, pp. 139-42; liv, 1898, pp. xcv-xcvi.

[46] Mr. Reid tells us that there was no vegetation except dwarf birches and willows and other Arctic plants. See _Nat. Science_, i, 1892, pp. 430, 432; C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp. 40, 42; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 32-3.

[47] This fact seems to have escaped the notice of a writer who argues (_Nat. Science_, iii, 1893, pp. 261-6) that ‘England was not restocked by a land connexion from the Continent after glaciation’, and affirms (p. 266) that ‘almost the only evidence of a post-glacial connexion with the Continent is the supposed necessity of such to account for our present fauna and flora’. The mammoth fed upon coniferous trees, fragments of the wood of which have been found in the crevices of its teeth (A. S. Woodward, _Outlines of Vertebrate Palaeontology_, 1898, p. 306).

[48] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxv, 1879, pp. 142-3.

[49] Sir Henry Howorth has written a series of articles (_Geol. Mag._, 1892, pp. 250-8, 396-405; _Nat. Science_, xii, 1898, pp. 261-70), in which he claims to have proved that ‘in no instance, so far as we know, does the drift actually underlie any land surface containing the remains of the mammoth and of its contemporaries.’ Translated into the language of geologists to whom the glacial period is not a nightmare, this is tantamount to an assertion that the mammoth was neither postglacial, nor interglacial, nor glacial, but preglacial. Mr. A. J. Jukes-Browne (_Geol. Mag._, 1892, p. 575) replies that ‘gravels containing mammoth remains occur in many other valleys [besides that of the Great Ouse], which are generally considered to have been eroded out of a widespread mantle of Glacial Drift’, and that ‘this conclusion is not shaken by anything which Sir H. Howorth has written’; while Sir John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1879, p. 701) remarks that ‘in some cases, as at Fisherton, the worked flints have been found below the remains of mammoth’. Since the gravel at Hoxne, in which bones of the mammoth and of extinct animals contemporary with the mammoth were found (Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 573-5; C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 77; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 20), was shown by the committee who excavated it (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 400-11) to be later than the latest glaciation of the district, Sir Henry naturally discredited their report; and he did so by declaring (_Nat. Science_, xii, 1898, p 266) that the members of the committee were ‘already committed ... to the view that the implement-bearing deposit at Hoxne was newer than the Drift. This,’ he continued, ‘was not very promising.... It was, in fact, indecent.’

[50] Cf. _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxiii, 1867, p. 107, with _Geol. Mag._, 1878, p. 98, and Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, 1880, p. 149; and see also the same writer’s _Cave-Hunting_, 1874, p. 362. Mr. H. B. Woodward states (_Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 23) that ‘the Dogger Bank is a remnant of old Pleistocene deposits; as Mr. Reid suggests [_Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Cromer_, 1882, p. 122], a re-extension of the old Rhine estuary’. I confess that I do not understand how Mr. Reid would reconcile this suggestion with his belief that the Channel was formed in the earliest part of the Ice Age.

[51] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34.

[52] _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Cromer_, p. 122; _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 23.

[53] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 577, 683, 685, 697.

[54] See p. 21, n. 5, _supra_, and cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, pp. 308, 310.

[55] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 333-4; _Proc. Liverpool Geol. Soc._, ix, 1901, pp. 18-19.

[56] _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints_, 1879, p. 68. Cf. S. H. Miller and S. B. J. Skertchly, _The Fenland_, 1878, pp. 548-51.

[57] _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 568. See, however, _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1887, p. 126.

[58] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliii, 1887, p. 117; liv, 1898, pp. lxxxvi-lxxxix.

[59] _Ib._, lx, 1904, pp. 132-3.

[60] Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxiii, 1867, pp. 91-109, and especially pp. 106-9) has argued that the Lower Brick-Earths in the Thames Valley, under which implements have been found, were preglacial,--locally, I presume. He observed that not one of ‘the Post-glacial Arctic mammalia’, namely, the glutton, lemming, marmot, musk-sheep, elk, and reindeer, is represented in this deposit, and maintains that, on the other hand, the presence of _Elephas priscus_ and the big-nosed rhinoceros (_Rhinoceros megarhinus_) ‘indicates the affinity of the [Brick-Earth] group to the Praeglacial deposits of Norfolk’, &c. Prestwich, however (_ib._, xxviii, 1872, p. 445), differed from the professor; and Sir John Evans (_ib._, p. 446) remarked that if the brick-earth were preglacial ‘there would be a great difficulty in accounting for the presence of the high beds at Shackleton and Highbury, as these, though in a valley confessedly excavated by the river, and regarded as of more recent age than the lower beds, would yet be at a far higher level’.

[61] Prof. P. F. Kendall maintains (_ib._, lx, 1904, p. 132) that even the Hoxne implements ‘were of very late Glacial, perhaps the very latest Glacial Age,’--not, as I understand, of the Hoxne district, but of Britain as a whole. Cf. _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 31, p. 59.

[62] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix. 1887, p. 129; J. Prestwich. _Controverted Questions_, p. 45.

[63] See _Geol. Mag._, 1894, p. 79.

[64] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 580.

[65] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxviii, 1872, p. 435; xxxv, 1879, pp. 142-3.

[66] _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Bournemouth_, 1898, p. 10; C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp. 44-5; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 35; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 22.

[67] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, 1894, pp. 170, 173, 191, 217-8. Cf. H. B. Woodward, _Geol. of England and Wales_, 1887, pp. 510-12, and Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 698.

[68] The descriptions, based upon the remains of fauna in caves, that have been given of the climate of Southern Gaul in successive periods of the Palaeolithic Age, however true they may be, do not apply in Britain. The little that is known of our climate suggests to Mr. Clement Reid ‘extremes with sharp alternations of cold, drought, and sudden floods’ (_Man_, iii, 1903, No. 29, p. 56, with which cf. _Proc. Roy. Soc._, lxi, 1897, p. 46).

[69] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 275; B. Harrison, _Outline of the Hist. of the Eol. Flint Implements_, 1904, pp. 9-10.

[70] _Nineteenth Century_, April, 1895, p. 623.

[71] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxi, 1892, p. 272.

[72] _Controverted Questions_, p. 77.

[73] _Ib._, p. 78. See also _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, liv, 1898, p. 298.

[74] The Rev. R. Ashington Bullen (_Nat. Science_, xii, 1898, p. 107) says that he has found ‘worked flints of the plateau types’ in ‘valley gravels’, but that they were ‘derived specimens’. See also _ib._, pp. 111-16. On the other hand, see p. 27, _infra_.

[75] _Nat. Science_, v, 1894, pp. 269, 271-2; _Nineteenth Century_, April, 1895, p. 626.

[76] J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, 1895, p. 54. Cf. _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xlv, 1889, p. 295, and _Journ. Vict. Inst._, xxxiii, 1901, p. 223.

[77] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxviii, 1872, pp. 39-40; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 632; _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Ringwood_, 1902, pp. 36, 39.

[78] As Mr. Clement Reid points out (ib., pp. 36-7), Prestwich’s implement ‘was not found in place, but picked up among fallen material.... The Alderbury gravel,’ he remarks, ‘judging from its less elevation above the river, is probably newer than the supposed Palaeolithic gravel north of Redlynch; yet it yields implements of more ancient type.’ See also _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 354, where Mr. H. Warren affirms that eoliths are associated with palaeolithic implements in the drift of High Down, Isle of Wight; and cf. _Man_, v, 1905, No. 80, p. 146.

[79] _Geol. Mag._, 1903, pp. 105-6. Mr. Reid thinks that the beds in which these flints have been found are not necessarily of Pliocene date, as they may have been _remaniés_. Eoliths are said to have been unearthed from gravels at Dewlish in Dorsetshire side by side with the bones of the extinct elephant known as _Elephas meridionalis_, whose remains have never yet been met with in this island except in preglacial beds (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliv, 1888, pp. 318-24; lxi, 1905, pp. 35-8; _Journ. Vict. Inst._, xxxiii, 1901, pp. 212-3); but these flints were so battered that Mr. Reid, who accepts many eoliths as genuine tools and regards them as ‘bad palaeoliths’, was obliged to reject them (_Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Ringwood_, p. 36).

[80] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, liv, 1898, pp. 291, 293-4.

[81] _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 1903, 1^{re} partie, pp. 246-7; _Nature_, lxxii, 1905, pp. 438-9; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 261. Are any of these flints identical in form with the characteristic Kentish specimens?

Sir John Evans, who is unable to accept the authenticity of any eoliths, nevertheless believes, or did believe in 1897 (_Anc. Stone Implements_, pp. 608-9), that the palaeolithic implements which have been found on the plateau belonged to a time when the ‘continuous slope now extending from the neighbourhood of the Thames to the summit of the chalk escarpment’ was ‘continued southward ... over a part of what is now the Lower Greensand area, if not, indeed, into that of the Weald’. In other words he believed that the palaeoliths were as old as the eoliths, and therefore that the question of the authenticity of the latter was unimportant. It is, however, now generally recognized that this view was based upon a misconception. Mr. Harrison (_Outline of the Hist. of the Eol. Flint Implements_, p. 17) states that ‘_palaeoliths and eoliths have been found together only on the surface and never in the drifts in situ_’. Cf. J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, p. 64.

Mr. Clement Reid (_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34) sees no reason for believing that any of the Kentish eoliths are older than palaeolithic implements in general. In a conversation which I had with him on April 11, 1906, he remarked that the patches of drift in which the eoliths had been found were generally dominated by higher ground, and that he could find no evidence that the flints had been washed down from the Weald. Eoliths have, however, been found in a pit at Terry’s Lodge ‘on the summit of the escarpment at a height of 770 feet’ (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 300. Cf. _Essex Naturalist_, xiii, 1904, p. 332).

[82] _L’Anthropologie_, xvi, 1905, pp. 257-67.

[83] _Man_, v, 1905, No. 102, p. 179. Cf. No. 92, p. 165.

[84] _Ib._, No. 91, p. 165.

[85] _Ib._, No. 103, pp. 180-83. Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 363, fig. 7.

[86] _Ib._, p. 361.

[87] Mr, Hazzledine Warren (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 358) goes so far as to affirm that the mineral condition of some of Mr. Harrison’s eoliths ‘shows that they ... are ... clearly as late as the neolithic age’. There is a bibliography of eoliths in _Geol. Mag._, 1903, pp. 108-10, to which may be added, besides the works quoted in this chapter, _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 240-6.

[88] See p. 32, _infra_. It must of course be remembered that this description applies only to one part of the Palaeolithic Age: palaeolithic man was still here when the Thames had cut out its valley to its present depth.

[89] See p. 40, n. 2, _infra_.

[90] M. Boule (_L’Anthr._ xiv, 1903, p. 533) regards the question of the existence of a palaeolithic age in Egypt as unsettled; but, as Mr. H. R. Hall observes (_Man_, v, 1905, No. 19, p. 34), ‘German investigators ... have no doubt whatever that the Pitt-Rivers flints from Thebes and those of palaeolithic type from the Wâdî esh-Shêkh and elsewhere are in reality palaeolithic.’ See also A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv. 9-11 (preface), and _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 1903, 2^{e} partie, p. 860. Palaeolithic implements are also said to have been found in Patagonia (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 255).

[91] Sir John Evans in _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1897 (1898), p. 14. Cf. _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 528-30, 650-54. In regard to palaeolithic remains in America see also _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 191.

[92] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 147. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Evolution of Culture_, 1906, p. xvi.

[93] _Climate and Time_, 1885, pp. 327-8.

[94] _Geol. Mag._, 1868, pp. 249-54.

[95] J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, pp. 22, 42; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 705-7.

[96] _Geol. Mag._, 1895, pp. 3-13, 55-65; A. Geikie, _Text-book of Geology_, 1903, pp. 1326-7. See also _Nature_, lii, 1895, p. 594; liii, 1895-6, pp. 29, 196, 220, 269, 295, 317, 340, 388, 460; and _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lviii, 1902, pp. 37-45.

[97] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 592, 708-9.

[98] Clement Reid in _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34; _Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1906, p. 286, and _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Ringwood_, pp. 31-2.

Sir John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 634-5, 690-93) has argued that the implementiferous gravel which caps the cliff at Bournemouth was deposited by the Solent river; but Mr. Clement Reid thinks it ‘very doubtful whether it was a deposit formed by ordinary river action’ (_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34); and (_ib._, pp. 27-8, 34) he is inclined to believe that the continuity of the Isle of Wight with Hampshire and Dorsetshire was already interrupted in late Pliocene times, though the Solent may perhaps have been merely an estuary and not a strait even in the time of the so-called interglacial estuarine deposits. See p. 20, _supra_.

[99] Dr. A. J. Evans (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1904 [1906], p. 721) calculates that the earliest settlement at Knossos in Crete (which was _neolithic_) is about 12,000 years old; but he assumes that in the western court of the palace ‘the average rate of deposit was fairly continuous’. Prof. Montelius (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 137) argues from the stratigraphy of finds at Susa that the beginning of the Neolithic Age in the East may be dated about 18,000 B.C. But even if these calculations could be established, it would still remain doubtful whether our Palaeolithic Age was not partly contemporary with a neolithic civilization in more genial climates. Probably it was (_ib._, p. 164). Against the theory which would minimize the antiquity of the Palaeolithic Age, see _ib._, xv, 1904, p. 66, and _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliii, 1887, p. 410, and in favour of it _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 27, n. 1.

[100] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xix, 1887, pp. 419-37. Neither of the skulls could be removed intact, but one was photographed (_ib._, p. 433). The forehead recedes, but not excessively: the supraciliary ridge is strong, but not abnormally developed.

[101] See p. 380, _infra_.

[102] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 70-3. See pp. 380-1, _infra_.

[103] See pp. 380-1, _infra_.

[104] See p. 381, _infra_.

[105] See pp. 382-3, _infra_.

[106] See pp. 382-3, _infra_.

[107] Mr. C. H. Read (_Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ [Brit. Museum], pl. 1 and p. 49) has no doubt that they were dagger-handles; but the abbé Breuil (_L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 632) affirms that it is ‘démontré qu’aucune des sculptures dont on a voulu faire des manches de poignard n’ont eu ce rôle’.

[108] E. Lartet and H. Christy, _Reliquiae Aquitanicae, passim_; _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 129-46; vi, 1895, p. 143; xiv, 1903, pp. 295-315; xv, 1904, pp. 129-76, 625-44. Among the palaeolithic artists were not only carvers and engravers but also draughtsmen and even painters. On the walls of caves in the Spanish Pyrenees are many-coloured frescoes, depicting animals as well as objects the meaning of which is still unknown. See _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 629; xvi, 1905, pp. 437, 442; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 320-5; xv, 1905, pp. 150-5; and _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 96.

[109] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxiii, 1877, p. 582.

[110] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 581; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone-Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 6. Mr. Clement Reid (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, pp. 106-12), has described ‘a probable Palaeolithic Floor [or old land surface] at Prah Sands, Cornwall’; but in the discussion which followed the reading of the paper he admitted that he ‘would not like to speak confidently as to any one of the stones being an implement’.

[111] See _Nat. Science_, iii, 1893, p. 369; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 35; _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Ringwood_, 1902, p. 48; _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 29, p. 56; and _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, p. 130.

Mr. Clement Reid, as those who are familiar with his writings must have seen, does not believe that many of the deposits classed as river-drift (see Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 662-709, especially 679) deserve that title. In a conversation which I had with him on April 11, 1906, he remarked that he could see no reason to suppose that palaeolithic man ‘was an aquatic animal’; that much of the so-called river-drift would probably be found, under minute examination, not to be due to fluviatile action; and that the geology of the Thames Valley, which in the Glacial Epoch was on the edge of the ice, presented great difficulties. See, however, Mr. H. B. Woodward’s article in _Vict. Hist. of ... Buckingham_, i, 22.

[112] See, however, _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 3.

[113] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 613-7.

[114] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 479, 488-525; _Phil. Trans._, clxiii, 1874, pp. 553-70; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxii, 1876, pp. 240-58; xxxiii, 1877, pp. 579-612; xxxv, 1879, pp. 724-35.

[115] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 485.

[116] _Ib._, pp. 474-5.

[117] See pp. 383-5, _infra_.

[118] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 475, 483-5, 528, 530, 575-6: _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, p. 132. In de Mortillet’s classification the oldest type was the Chellean (called after Chelles in the department of Seine-et-Marne): then followed successively the types represented in the cave of Le Moustier, at Solutré, and in the cave of La Madelaine. Dr. M. Hoernes (_Der diluviale Mensch in Europa_, 1903, pp. 21, 63, 185-6, &c.) combines the Chellean and Mousterian periods. (See also _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, p. 407, and _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, pp. 27, 196-8).

[119] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxii, 1876, pp. 252-3; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 522-3.

[120] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 215, 220.

[121] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 60-89, 96-175. Cf. _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 27.

[122] Prof. Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 192) says that, except at Pont Newydd, ‘the association of traces of man with the remains of hippopotamus has, as yet, not been observed in any bone caves either in this country or on the Continent’. Sir John Evans, who does not mention such remains in his notice of Pont Newydd (_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 521), records their discovery, without associated implements, in the ‘mid-terrace gravels’ near Acton (_ib._, p. 591), and in gravels of the same character as those which yield implements, near Bedford (p. 533) and at Folkestone (p. 621). Evidently (pp. 699-700, with which cf. Boyd Dawkins and W. Ayshford, _Brit. Pleistocene Mammalia_, 1866, p. xxviii) he has no doubt that the hippopotamus was contemporary in Britain with palaeolithic man; but Mr. Clement Reid, in a conversation which I had with him on April 11, 1906, questioned whether its bones had ever been found together with implements.

[123] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 528, 533, 536, 591; M. Hoernes, _Der diluviale Mensch in Europa_. 1903, p. 13. Readers who are interested in the question which is raised by the discoveries of Arctic in association with tropical mammalian remains should consult _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxviii, 1872, pp. 426-43; xxxv, 1879, p. 142; W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 113-14; E. Piette, _La France préhist. par M. Cartailhac_, 1890, pp. 5-6; _Nat. Science_, i, 1892, p. 432; iii, 1893, pp. 262-3; Lord Avebury, _Prehist. Times_, 6th ed., 1900, p. 290; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 36-7; and R. Lydekker, _Mostly Mammals_, p. 269. See also, in regard to the contrast between the intermingling of tropical and Arctic animals in Britain and Northern Gaul and their succession in South-Western Gaul, M. Hoernes, _op. cit._, p. 193, and _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 305, 317.

[124] _Ib._, xv, 1904, pp. 57-8; xvi, 1905, p. 67.

[125] See p. 384, _infra_.

[126] _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 94. Chellean implements have been found at Le Moustier, evidently _in situ_, in the second layer from the top, among those of the Madelaine period.

[127] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903, pp. 804-5.

[128] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1904 (1905), p. 726; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 308.

[129] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 504-7, 512-7, 523, 565-6, 581, 640-9, 655-6; Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 110-11, 121, 248-9.

[130] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 294-9.

[131] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 113-4, 116, 142-3, 165.

[132] _Ib._, pp. 262-7; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 224; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 274. Cf. J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, pp. 76-7.

[133] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 145.

[134] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 645, 656; Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 222; _Vict. Hist of ... Hertford_, i. 224. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, pp. 183-4) affirms that certain implements found in the upper cave-earth of Church Hole and the Robin Hood Cave at Creswell Crags ‘had obviously been let into a handle ... by which the edge of one side had been protected, while the other was worn away by use’; and in _Nature_ (May 22, 1902, p. 77) it is stated that a palaeolithic implement, recently discovered near Ipswich, ‘shows signs of having been worked for hafting.’

[135] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 645, 655.

[136] _Prehist. Times_, 1900, p. 332.

[137] See _Journ. Roy. United Service Inst._, xii, 1868, pp. 408-9.

[138] _Antiquity of Man_, 4th ed., 1873, p. 422.

[139] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 486, 657-8. Traces of corn have been found in French palaeolithic caves, though there is no evidence that it was cultivated. See _Congrès internal. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 408.

[140] E. Lartet and H. Christy, _Reliquiae Aquitanicae_, B. 1, pl. ii, fig. 5. Prof. Boyd Hawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 214) has no doubt about the subject of the drawing: I confess that I am not so certain.

[141] ‘It is doubtful,’ says H. E. Schoolcraft (_Indian Tribes of the United States_, i, 1851, p. 433), ‘whether an area of fifty thousand acres, left in the forest state, is more than sufficient to sustain by the chase a single hunter.’ One may be allowed, however, to suspect an exaggeration in this estimate; otherwise how could the communities who dwelled at Caddington and Crayford (see pp. 39, 42-4, _supra_) have escaped starvation? See also A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, 1905, pp. 6-7, 88-9, 151-2.

[142] See Mr. Lewis Abbott’s paper in J. Salmon’s _Guide to Sevenoaks_, 1905, pp. 120-1. Cf. _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 17.

[143] _Life of Sir J. Prestwich_, 1899, p. 376.

[144] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, p. 501.

[145] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, p. 211. I must admit that I feel doubtful whether the illustration in _Reliquiae Aquitanicae_ which Professor Dawkins reproduces really represents gloves.

[146] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 657.

[147] _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 258, 263-5; _Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des Sciences_, 1903, pp. 1536-7.

[148] E. Lartet and H. Christy, _Reliquiae Aquitanicae_, p. 209.

[149] _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 174.

[150] _Ib._, v, 1894, p. 146.

[151] _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér. iii, 1902, p. 771. It is remarkable that Ezekiel (viii. 10-11), speaking of seventy of ‘the ancients of the house of Israel’ who were worshipping in a court, says that he saw therein ‘every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts ... pourtrayed upon the wall round about’. These were ‘unclean’ animals, which were _not_ to be eaten. Cf. A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 2nd ed., 1885, p. 115.

M. Reinach also insists (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 264-5) that the so-called sceptres, or _bátons de commandement_--engraved and perforated instruments of reindeer-horn--which have been found in French palaeolithic caves, were used in magical ceremonies; whereas it has been proved by Dr. O. Schoetensack (_ib._, xii, 1901, pp. 140-4) that they were merely dress-fasteners similar to those which are used by the Eskimos.

[152] See A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp. 294, 296.

[153] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 293.

[154] See p. 34, _supra_.

[155] _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 395. Cf. p. 321 of the same volume, and vol. iv, 1893, p. 550.

[156] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxi, 1892, p. 297; xxiii, 1894, pp. 147, 151.

[157] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 293-4. The Tasmanians ‘placed weapons near the grave for the dead friend’s soul to use’ (E. B. Tylor in _Ency. Brit._, xxv, 1902, p. 467). Cf. pp. 200-2, _infra_.

[158] See pp. 262-3, 464, _infra_.

[159] Mr. Andrew Lang (_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 22, p. 37), remarking that in the cave of Mas d’Azil, in the department of the Ariège, there has been found a pendeloque of bone which exactly resembles some Australian ‘bull-roarers’ (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 655-60), infers that ‘palaeolithic and neolithic man ... probably had such religious ideas as among savages are attached to bull-roarers’. There is an interesting chapter on bull-roarers (which in this country are more familiar to schoolboys than to scholars) in Mr. Lang’s _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp. 29-44.

[160] See E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 4th ed., 1903, i, 417-24.

[161] _Ib._, p. 424.

[162] See pp. 461-3, _infra_.

[163] It is said that totemism exists in New Guinea (_Man_, v, 1905, No. 2) and on the Gold Coast (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxvi, 1906, pp. 178-88).

[164] See A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 2, 66.

[165] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 355.

[166] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 237.

[167] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, p. 146.

[168] _Ib._, p. 147.

[169] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 22-3. I confess that I cannot understand why descent should have been reckoned in the female line if, as Mr. Lang apparently holds, the master of each little primitive group was the only sire in that group. [I am glad to find that Dr. W. H. D. Rouse (_Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, p. 25) has argued in the same sense.]

[170] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 236; B. Spencer and F. J. Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, 1899, pp. 73, 121; _Man_, iv, 1904, No. 93, p. 143. See also No. 98, p. 150.

[171] _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 665-7.

[172] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 59-89, especially 66, 68, 70, 72-4, 89. See also pp. 7-8 in regard to the complex organization of Australian tribes. The Aruntas (_ib._, pp. 17-18) do not inherit their totems, which are ‘determined by _local_ accident’.

[173] _Ib._, p. 29. Mr. Lang conjectures (p. 114) that the master of a small group, actuated by sexual jealousy, ‘expelled all his adult sons as they came to puberty.’ Such a group, he remarks, would have been ‘necessarily exogamous in practice’, and then (_ib._, p. 143) would have come the rule, ‘No marriage within the local group.’ But would it have been to the interest of the master to expel sons who were useful? What would have become of them? Would not the same sexual jealousy that _ex hypothesi_ prompted their expulsion have prevented the master of any other group from receiving them? And if the master was killed in hunting after he had expelled his sons, what became of the other members of the group?

In connexion with Mr. Lang’s book, see _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 17, pp. 27-8, No. 34, pp. 51-4, No. 87, p. 131, and No. 112, p. 182.

[174] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 116, 127-8, 153. Cf. Lord Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 275.

[175] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, p. 125.

[176] _Archaeol. Rev._, iii, 1889, p. 220.

[177] _Ib._, p. 227.

[178] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd ser., iv, 1863, pp. 82, 158. These passages, which are referred to by Mr. Gomme in vol. iii of _Archaeol. Rev._, do not support the statement in the text about the geese of Great Crosby, for which he is responsible.

[179] _Archaeol. Rev._, iii, 1889, p. 355.

[180] _B. G._, v, 12, § 6.

[181] M. S. Reinach’s explanation of this passage (_Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, p. 275) was anticipated by Elton (_Origins of English Hist._, 2nd ed., 1890, p. 288).

[182] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, pp. 141, 143-4, 148. M. Reinach seems to make this assumption when he says (see preceding note) that we are justified in affirming that ‘chez certaines tribus au moins de la Bretagne, le lièvre, l’oie et la poule étaient des animaux sacrés, c’est-à-dire, des totems’. I am glad to find that M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 274) also rejects M. Reinach’s guess; but he continues, ‘Je suis, du reste, convaincu, avec M. Reinach, que les Celtes ont connu le totémisme ... par exemple, si _bran(n)os_ signifie ... “le corbeau”, une tribu gauloise avait pris cet oiseau pour totem ... _Aulerci Brannovices_,’ &c. On the much surer evidence of such names as Bull, Lamb, Herring, Roach, and many others, M. Jullian might conclude that ‘les Anglais du vingtième siècle connaissent le totémisme’. It is perhaps reasonable to conjecture that the name _Brannovices_ may point to a remote age when the ancestors of the historic Celts had totems: but it is quite certain that the Celts of whom M. Jullian is thinking knew nothing about totemism; and the superstitions which forbade the Britons to eat hares, geese, and fowls, may have been absolutely unconnected with totemism. See Lord Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 19. Miss Eleanor Hull (_Folk-Lore_, xii, 1901, p. 49) observes that ‘there is one example of what appears to be a true totemistic idea in those [Irish] stories.... It is in Cúchulainn’s prohibition to eat the flesh of a hound because it was his namesake.’

[183] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave-Hunting_, p. 165.

[184] Notably Dr. F. B. Jevons (_Folk-Lore_, x, 1899, pp. 374-5) and M. S. Reinach (_Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, pp. 283, 299, 305).

[185] See W. Ridgeway, _Origin ... of the Thoroughbred Horse_, 1905, pp. 90-1, 479, and _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 27-53, especially 27, 29, and figs. 1 and 1_a_. If these illustrations, which purport to reproduce late palaeolithic engravings of horses, are accurate, they unquestionably depict halters, though M. Zaborowski (_Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 32^e sess., 1903, 2^{e} partie, p. 849) thinks that they only represent lassoes.

[186] See a very interesting review [by Mr. Andrew Lang?] in the _Athenæum_, April 22, 1905, pp. 502-3, of M. Reinach’s _Cultes, mythes et religions_, and also papers on the domestication of animals in the numbers for April 29 (p. 533), May 6 (p. 565), and May 13 (p. 597).

[187] It is impossible to tell whether in Ancient Britain oxen were at any time regarded as sacred, as they apparently were among the early Phoenicians, the Libyans, the ancestors of the Greeks, and other primitive peoples, their flesh being never eaten except in sacrificial feasts, partaken of by the whole clan. See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp. 296-311.

[188] _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 355-7. Cf. _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp. 408-9.

[189] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, p. 148. Cf. _Man_, v, 1905, No. 2, p. 6.

[190] _Chambers’s Ency._, vi, 1901, p. 795. M. S. Reinach (_L’Anthr._ xvi, 1905, p. 660) regards magic as ‘la mère de toutes les vraies sciences’.

[191] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, 1905, pp. 37-9, 43-4, 77-8, &c.

[192] See _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 40, p. 62, No. 112, p. 189 (for a criticism of Dr. Frazer’s ‘oil-and-water theory’ of magic and religion), and Mr. Sidney Hartland’s most interesting presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the British Association (_Times_, Aug. 7, 1906, p. 11, cols. 4-6).

[193] _Folk-Lore_, xv, 1904, pp. 159-60.

[194] _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, pp. 574-5.

[195] _Ib._, p. 660.

[196] _Man_, v, 1905, No. 10, pp. 18-19.

[197] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, _passim_.

[198] See _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 29, p. 46.

[199] See A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p. 237.

[200] _Ib._, p. 242; J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 2, 3, 36-7.

[201] See pp. 387-8, _infra_.

[202] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 704.

[203] See p. 20, _supra_.

[204] See p. 398, _infra_.

[205] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 178.

[206] See pp. 382, 389, n. 6, _infra_.

[207] See p. 389, _infra_. M. L. Siret (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 127) says the same for Spain.

[208] See pp. 385-90, _infra_. ‘The ... transition,’ says Mr. Clement Reid (_Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 45), ‘from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic is, unfortunately, one of the most obscure, and I can only suggest that the break is more apparent than real, and that one follows the other in close succession.’ See also p. 93 of the same book.

[209] See Mr. Clement Reid’s chapter in _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 35-6.

[210] See A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit. Isles_, p. 300. Mr. Clement Reid (_Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 46) states that in the early part of the Neolithic Age ‘the land stood ... some 60 or 70 feet above its present level’. Cf. p. 20, _supra_.

[211] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 141-5; J. Prestwich, _Geology_, ii, 523-4; A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit. Isles_, pp. 300-2; Clement Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 46.

[212] _Nature_, Jan. 6, 1898, p. 235; _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, p. 271.

[213] _Ib._, p. 272.

[214] _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, p. 270; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxix, 1895, pp. 223-7, 431-2, 438; R. Munro, _Prehist. Problems_, 1897, p. 72.

[215] See _L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 319-24, and M. Hoernes, _Der diluviale Mensch in Europa_, p. 185.

[216] _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xvii, 1896, pp. 67-75.

[217] See pp. 395-7, _infra_.

[218] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 256.

[219] _Ib._, p. 37; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25.

[220] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 229, and _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, p. 285. Dr. A. H. Keane’s extravagant estimates of the length of the Neolithic Age in Europe, which vary between the limits of ‘scarcely less than 60,000 years’ (_Ethnology_, 2nd ed., 1896, p. 55) and ‘over 100,000 years’ (_ib._, p. 116), are based upon obsolete calculations of the chronology of the Glacial Period. See pp. 31-2, _supra_.

[221] See pp. 126-7, _infra_.

[222] See _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp. 408-14, especially p. 412.

[223] See pp. 398-407, _infra_.

[224] See pp. 427-8, 433, 443, _infra_.

[225] This use of the word ‘dolmen’, which obtains in France, although megalithic chambers enclosed in tumuli are there sometimes called by the same name (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 221), is becoming common in this country; but in Wales dolmens are still known as cromlechs, a name which in France is applied only to stone circles.

[226] See _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 214. The kistvaens of Dartmoor are really small dolmens.

[227] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, 1886, p. 232; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 1897, pp. 461-2.

[228] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 222; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 446.

[229] _Ib._, p. 426; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., v, 1870-3, pp. 367-70; viii, 1879-81, pp. 287-9; _Dict. des sc. anthr._, 1883, pp. 388, 1078; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 221; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, pp. 174-7; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 259-62. In the eighteenth century the famous Kentish dolmen called Kit’s Coty House was still partly enclosed within a sepulchral mound. The Rev. W. C. Lukis, in a letter to Mr. George Payne _(Collectanea Cantiana_, 1893, p. 127), says, ‘I have a letter written ... in 1723 by one Hercules Ayleway [in which] ... Kit’s Coty is represented as being partly in a long barrow.’ See also Borlase, _op. cit._, iii, 752-3.

Mr. A. L. Lewis (_Man_, vii, 1907, No. 26, p. 38) says that a dolmen on Great Orme’s Head shows ‘that there certainly were dolmens that were never buried, but were intended to be “free-standing”’.

[230] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 424-6, 612-3.

[231] In Pembrokeshire, Glamorganshire, Merionethshire, Carnarvonshire, and Anglesey. Elsewhere they are almost entirely wanting, perhaps owing to the lack of suitable stones (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iv, 1904, p. 199).

[232] See pp. 402-5, _infra_.

[233] See pp. 405-6, _infra_.

[234] See p. 382, _infra_.

[235] See pp. 101-2, _infra_.

[236] _B. G._, vi, 28.

[237] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxiv, 1878, p. 351; W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 257-62, 484; R. Munro, _The Lake-Dwellings of Europe_, 1890, p. 488; _Archaeologia_, lv, 1897, pp. 130-1, 158.

[238] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, p. 359; the topographical index in Sir J. Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897; and the _Victoria County Histories of Berks._ (i, 276), _Hants_ (i, 257), _Lancs._ (i, 212), _Northampton_ (i, 139), _Sussex_ (i, 311, 313, 470), and _Worcester_ (i, 180).

[239] Sir J. Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 65-6, 104-6, 107-9, 129-30, 213, &c. Implements of jade and jadeite, which are common in the lake-dwellings (F. Keller, _Lake Dwellings of Switzerland_ [trans. J. E. Lee], i, 1878, pp. 72, 195-6, 215-6), are very rare in Britain (Evans, _op. cit._, p. 109), and were doubtless imported, as jade apparently does not exist _in situ_ in Europe, except in Silesia and Styria _(Journ. Anthr. Inst._, x, 1881, p. 359; xx, 1890-1, pp. 332-42, especially 334 and 338; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1890, p. 971; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 555).

[240] Similar lamps have been found in neolithic caves in France (_Ass. franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 32^{e} session, 1903, 2^{e} partie, pp. 896-900), and are still used in China (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxii, 1888, p. 81). Cf. p. 258, _infra_.

[241] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, p. 430.

[242] _Ib._, p. 427.

[243] _Ib._, pp. 419-39; S. B. J. Skertchly, _Memoirs of the Geol. Survey,--On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints_, pp. 39-41, 71, 74.

[244] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, p. 439.

[245] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 368-74. See p. 98, _infra_.

[246] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 80, 85-6; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 79.

[247] See p. 214, _infra_.

[248] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, v, 1876, pp. 357-62, 382, 479; _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 59-60, 66, 68-9, 73-4; xlv, 1880, pp. 337-8, 340-7; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 69-70; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 315.

[249] See J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 306.

[250] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 395.

[251] See pp. 131-2, 230, _infra_; E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of Mankind_, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 194; A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p. 11; O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, 1890, p. 234; and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 246-58.

[252] pp. 78-81, _infra_.

[253] _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, pp. 257-8.

[254] Traces of polishing are said to have been found on French implements of late palaeolithic age (_Ass. franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 13^{e} sess., 1884, 1^{re} part., p. 212; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 550).

[255] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 73, 85-6, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 69-70. Much depended upon the nature of the material. Certain hard stones, for instance granite and diorite, were necessarily ground and polished. See _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 550, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 69.

[256] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 276.

[257] _Ib._, pp. 28-9, 31.

[258] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 14-37, 43. Cf. _15th Ann. Report American Bureau of Ethn._, 1893-4 (1897), p. 25.

[259] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 37-43, 412, 414-6; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, p. 47.

[260] J. A. H. Murray, _New Eng. Dict._, ii, 215. Cf. Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 55.

[261] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 66, 107.

[262] _Ib._, pp. 71, 172, 205; _Proc. Suffolk Inst. of Archaeology_, xi, 1903, p. 329.

[263] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 129, 235. See also E. B. Tylor, _Early Hist. of Mankind_, 1870, pp. 205-6; _Prim. Culture_, 1903, i, 65.

[264] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 136, 171.

[265] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--The Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 353-4.

[266] _Archaeologia_, xliv, 1873, pp. 281-3.

[267] F. Keller, _The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland_, i, 1878, pp. 21-2, 38, 57, 90, &c.

[268] An axe-hammer has, however, been found in the Liverpool Docks, scored with a groove, along which a withy was perhaps twisted to serve as a handle (Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 168-9; _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 218).

[269] M. Hippolyte Müller (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 424-6) has cut down numerous trees with flint axes, which were uninjured by the experiments. Two of the trees were felled in thirteen and fourteen minutes respectively.

[270] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 79, 171-2, 195-6.

[271] _Ib._, pp. 175-6.

[272] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 178.

[273] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, iv, 1875, p. 403.

[274] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 183-4.

[275] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 215; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 489.

[276] See _Archaeologia,_ xliii, 1871, p. 409.

[277] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 246; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iii, 1903, p. 234; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 355.

[278] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 183-4, 195, 215, 231.

[279] _Ib._, pp. 238-9, 245, 247-8, 250-2.

[280] _Ib._, pp. 275-6, 289. See pp. 92-3, _infra_.

[281] See _Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865 (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, p. lxvi); _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 229-30; and _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 294. Dr. R. Munro. (_Prehist. Problems_, pp. 325-30, 359) would refer all the British flint saws to the Bronze Age, on the ground that ‘bronze saws have never yet been found in the British Isles’: but this statement is inaccurate (see p. 132, _infra_); and, as we have seen (p. 41, _supra_), serrated palaeolithic flints have been unearthed in a gravel-pit at Swanscombe.

[282] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 299-300, 311-2.

[283] _Ib._, pp. 312-9; _Mem. Geol. Survey,--On the Manufacture of Gun Flints_, p. 39.

[284] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 321.

[285] _Ib._, pp. 326-32, 356-7.

[286] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 360-1, 369-98; _Man_, vii, 1907, No. 25, p. 37; No. 37, p. 56.

[287] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, p. 54.

[288] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, p. 377.

[289] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 272.

[290] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 131.

[291] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xi, 1876, p. 509.

[292] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 361.

[293] _Ib._, pp. 428-30; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 355, 361.

[294] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, pp. 431, 433-4.

[295] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 304. Messrs. W. Johnson and W. Wright (_Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey_, 1903, pp. 49, 169), who have been diligent in collecting tools from North-Eastern Surrey, remark that ‘some were fitted for use in the right hand, and others for the left’, and conclude that the people who used them were ambidextrous. But surely the more natural conclusion would be that some were left-handed!

[296] On the moors near Sheffield and in East Lancashire, in Staffordshire and Lincolnshire, and at Hastings.

[297] Donegal.

[298] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 324-5; _Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., vi, 1900-2, pp. 362-3; _Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 123-6; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 98-101; _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 15, pp. 18-22.

[299] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 136.

[300] See _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 20-1, 146, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 77-8. M. Salomon Reinach (_Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 193-9) attributes the absence of such artistic remains in France to the influence of Druids.

[301] _Carm._, ii, 15, 10-20.

[302] Professor B.C. A. Windle (_Remains of the Prehist. Age_, p. 257) affirms that excavations in the stronghold of Eggardun in Dorsetshire have proved that ‘pit-dwellings were in use in the Pre-metallic period’; and he remarks (_ib._, p. 258) that there was ‘no trace of any metallic object in the pits examined by Stevens at Hurstbourne or in those at Standlake’ in Oxfordshire. It is shown on p. 97, _infra_, that there is no sufficient reason for referring Eggardun to the Neolithic Age: bronze was discovered at Standlake (_Archaeologia_, xxxvii, 1857, p. 368), which, according to Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 20-1), bore such an ‘exact resemblance to the [Romano-British] Woodcuts village’, that, in his judgement, ‘further excavations would have proved it to have been of the Roman or Late-Celtic period’: Romano-British pottery was found in the pits at Hurstbourne; and Dr. Stevens himself (_Parochial Hist. of St. Mary Bourne_, 1888, p. 34) only claimed that ‘the flint implements ... establish that the site, if not the dwellings, was occupied by the people of the Neolithic Age’. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 262) rightly refers the dwellings to the Iron Age.

Bone weaving-combs, which were found in pit-dwellings at Highfield, near Fisherton in Wiltshire, evidently belonged, like the querns with which they were associated (J. Stevens, _Parochial Hist. of St. Mary Bourne_, p. 25), to the Early Iron Age (cf. Sir J. Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 251, and _Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 115); and although Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man_, &c., p. 268) pleads that the pottery, which was ‘ornamented with incised curves’, was ‘not turned in the lathe’, that does not prove that it was made in the Neolithic or even the Bronze Age (see p. 244, _infra_); while the ‘curves’ suggest that it was Late Celtic.

[303] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xi, 1882, pp. 472-3.

[304] _Archaeol. Cant._, xiii, 1880, pp. 122-6.

[305] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 128; _Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 237.

[306] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xii, 1887-9, pp. 258-63; xvii, 1897-9, pp. 216-21; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 124, 127, 134.

[307] _Norfolk Archaeology_, iii, 1852, pp. 232-6; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 127; _Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 236. Cf. _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iv, 1904, p. 200.

[308] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 258-9.

[309] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 127, 139.