by being drawn to different scales, they are made to appear of the same size in the figures; and, in other cases, the specimens engraved are apparently unfinished, or merely wasters thrown away.
But even granting that these exceptional instances of resemblance can be found, there is no one who can deny that the general facies of a collection of implements from the River-drift, and that of one from the Surface is absolutely distinct. With regard to the Scandinavian stone antiquities, I possess perhaps as extensive a collection of them as any one out of that country; and further, I have more than once examined the collections, both public and private, at Copenhagen, as well as at Christiania, Stockholm, and Lund, and yet I do not remember to have seen any specimen—unless, possibly, a mere flake or rough block—which, if placed before me without comment, I should have taken to be Palæolithic.
In most cases, even if a similarity of form should be found to exist, there will be a difference in the character of the surface of the material; the deep staining, more especially, and the glossy surface so common on the implements from the gravel, being but rarely met with on those from the surface soil.
But though, on the whole, so widely differing from the implements of the Neolithic Period, those belonging to Palæolithic times show a marvellous correspondence with each other, in whatever part of England they are found; and this correspondence extends, in an equal degree, to the implements found in the River-gravels of France and of other Continental countries. In illustration of this, Mr. Flower has engraved,[1] side by side, two implements from Thetford, and two from St. Acheul, each pair being almost identical both in shape and size. But what is more remarkable still, this resemblance in form prevails not only with the implements from the River-gravels of Western Europe, but with those from the lateritic beds of Southern India. It is true that the material is somewhat different, the Indian implements being formed of compact quartzite instead of flint, and that this circumstance somewhat affects the character of the fracture and facets; but so far as general form is concerned, they may be said to be identical with those from the European River-drifts.
The original discoverer of these implements (in 1863), Mr. R. Bruce Foote,[2] has described them on more than one occasion, and
