Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file
which includes the more than 400 original illustrations.
See 51960-h.htm or 51960-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/51960/pg51960-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51960/51960-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/ancientstoneimpl00evaniala
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: S^r).
Small capitalss are changed to all capital letters.
Original page numbers have been inserted into the text
and are shown like this: |81|.
Footnotes were changed to endnotes, and renumbered 1–2808.
Long descriptive passages in the printed book were marked
by a line of white space before and after, and smaller
font and line-height. In this e-book the white space
separators are displayed as a line of asterisks.
THE ANCIENT STONE IMPLEMENTS, WEAPONS AND ORNAMENTS, OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Second Edition, Revised.
by
SIR JOHN EVANS, K.C.B., D.C.L., Sc.D., LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., F.G.S., etc., etc.
Correspondant de L’Institut de France.
Longmans, Green, and Co.
39, Paternoster Row, London
and Bombay
1897
(All rights reserved.)
London:
Printed by J. S. Virtue and Co., Limited.
City Road.
|v|
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION.
In presenting this work to the public I need say but little by way
of preface. It is the result of the occupation of what leisure hours
I could spare, during the last few years, from various and important
business, and my object in undertaking it is explained in the
Introduction.
What now remains for me to do is to express my thanks to those numerous
friends who have so kindly aided me during the progress of my work,
both by placing specimens in their collections at my disposal, and
by examination of my proofs. Foremost among these must be ranked the
Rev. William Greenwell, F.S.A., from whose unrivalled collection of
British antiquities I have largely drawn, and from whose experience and
knowledge I have received much assistance in other ways.
To Mr. A. W. Franks, F.S.A.; Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S.; Mr. W. Pengelly,
F.R.S.; Colonel A. Lane Fox, F.S.A.; Mr. E. T. Stevens, of Salisbury;
Messrs. Mortimer, of Fimber; Mr. Joseph Anderson, the Curator of the
Antiquarian Museum at Edinburgh; and to numerous others whose names are
mentioned in the following pages, my thanks must also be expressed.
The work itself will, I believe, be found to contain most of the
information at present available with regard to the class of
antiquities of which it treats. The subject is one which does not
readily lend itself to lively description, and an accumulation of
facts, such as is here presented, is of necessity dull. I have,
however, relegated to smaller type the bulk of the descriptive |vi|
details of little interest to the ordinary reader, who will probably
find more than enough of dry matter to content him if he confines
himself to the larger type and an examination of the illustrations.
Whatever may be the merits or defects of the book, there are two
points on which I feel that some credit may be claimed. The one is
that the woodcuts—the great majority of which have been specially
engraved for this work by Mr. Swain, of Bouverie Street—give accurate
representations of the objects; the other is, that all the references
have been carefully checked.
The Index is divided into two parts; the first showing the subjects
discussed in the work, the second the localities where the various
antiquities have been found.
Now that so much more attention than formerly is being bestowed on this
class of antiquities, there will, no doubt, be numerous discoveries
made, not only of forms with which we are at present unacquainted, but
also of circumstances calculated to throw light on the uses to which
stone implements and weapons were applied, and the degree of antiquity
to be assigned to the various forms.
I will only add that I shall gladly receive any communications relative
to such discoveries.
JOHN EVANS.
_Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead, May, 1872._
|vii|
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The undiminished interest taken by many archæologists in the subject
to which this book relates seems to justify me in again placing it
before the public, though in an extended and revised form. I am further
warranted in so doing by the fact that the former edition, which
appeared in 1872, has now been long out of print.
In revising the work it appeared desirable to retain as much of the
original text and arrangement as possible, but having regard to the
large amount of new matter that had to be incorporated in it and to the
necessity of keeping the bulk of the volume within moderate bounds,
some condensation seemed absolutely compulsory. This I have effected,
partly by omitting some of the detailed measurements of the specimens,
and partly by printing a larger proportion of the text in small type.
I have also omitted several passages relating to discoveries in the
caverns of the South of France.
I have throughout preserved the original numbering of the Figures, so
that references that have already been made to them in other works will
still hold good. The new cuts, upwards of sixty in number, that have
been added in this edition are distinguished by letters affixed to the
No. of the Figure immediately preceding them.
The additions to the text, especially in the portion relating to the
Palæolithic Period, are very extensive, and I hope that all the more
important discoveries of stone antiquities made in this country during
the last quarter of a century are here duly recorded, and references
given to the works in which fuller details concerning them may be
found. In some cases, owing to the character of the |viii| objects
discovered being insufficiently described, I have not thought it
necessary to cite them.
I am indebted to numerous collectors throughout the country for having
called my attention to specimens that they acquired, and for having,
in many cases, sent them to me for examination. I may take this
opportunity of mentioning that while the whole of the objects found by
Canon Greenwell during his examination of British Barrows has been most
liberally presented to the nation, the remainder of his fine collection
of stone antiquities, so frequently referred to in these pages, has
passed into the hands of Dr. W. Allen Sturge, of Nice.
The two Indices have been carefully compiled by my sister, Mrs.
Hubbard, and are fuller than those in the former edition. They will
afford valuable assistance to any one who desires to consult the book.
For the new woodcuts that I have had engraved I have been so fortunate
as to secure the services of Messrs. Swain, who so skilfully cut the
blocks for the original work. I am indebted for the loan of numerous
other blocks to several learned Societies, and especially to the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and to the Geological Society of
London. Mr. Worthington Smith has also most liberally placed a number
of blocks at my disposal.
It remains for me to express my thanks to those who have greatly aided
me in the preparation of this edition, the whole of the proofs of which
have been kindly read by Mr. C. H. Read, F.S.A., of the British Museum,
as well as by some members of my own family. Dr. Joseph Anderson, of
the National Museum at Edinburgh, has been good enough to read the
parts relating to Scotland, while Professor Boyd Dawkins has gone over
the chapter on Cave Implements, and Mr. William Whitaker has corrected
the account of the discoveries in the River-drift. To each and all I am
grateful, and as the result of their assistance I trust that, though
not immaculate, the book may prove to be fairly free from glaring
errors and inconsistencies.
JOHN EVANS.
_Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead, May, 1897._
|ix|
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
The Iron, Bronze, and Stone Ages — Bronze in use before Iron —
Persistence of Religious Rites — Use of Stone in Religious Ceremonies —
Stone Antiquities not all of the same Age — Order of Treatment . . . 1
CHAPTER II.
ON THE MANUFACTURE OF STONE IMPLEMENTS IN PREHISTORIC TIMES.
Pyrites and Flint used for striking Fire — Strike-a-light Flints —
The Gun-flint Manufacture — Gun-flint Production — Modes of producing
Flakes — Pressigny Nuclei — Rough-hewing Stone-hatchets — Ancient
Mining for Flint — Flint-mines at Grime’s Graves and Spiennes —
Production of Arrow-heads — Flaking Arrow-heads — Arrow-flakers —
Grinding Stone Implements — Methods of Sawing Stone — Methods of
Boring Stone — Boring by means of a Tube — Progress in Modes of
Manufacture . . . 14
_IMPLEMENTS OF THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD._
CHAPTER III.
CELTS.
Belief in their Meteoric Origin — Regarded as Thunderbolts — Celt with
Gnostic Inscriptions — Their Origin and Virtues — How regarded by the
Greeks and Romans . . . 55
CHAPTER IV.
CHIPPED OR ROUGH-HEWN CELTS.
The Kjökken-Mödding Type — Some possibly Agricultural Implements — Some
carefully Chipped — The Common Forms — Their abundance — Discoveries
at Cissbury — Found in company with Polished Celts — Their probable
Age . . . 67
CHAPTER V.
CELTS GROUND AT THE EDGE ONLY.
Pointed at the Butt-end — Of Elongated Form — Expanding at the Ends —
Of Peculiar Forms — Their Occurrence in Foreign Countries . . . 87
CHAPTER VI.
POLISHED CELTS.
A Type common in the Eastern Counties — With the Surface ground all
over — Expanding at the Edge — Of other Materials than Flint — The
Thin and Highly-polished Type — With Flat Sides — With Flat Sides
and Narrow Butt — With Flat Sides and Pointed Butt — Of Rectangular
Section — Chisel-like and of Rectangular Section — Of Oval Section —
Of Oval Section with Conical Butt — Of a Form common in France — Of
Oval Section pointed at the Butt — With a Cutting Edge at each End —
Sharp at both Ends — Polished Celts narrowing in the Middle — Used in
the Hand without Hafting — Polished Celts of Abnormal types — Polished
Celts with Depressions and Flutings — Circumstances under which they
have been Found — Their Discovery with Objects of Later Date — Their
Range in Time — Accompanying Interments — Manner in which Hafted — In
their original Handles — Inserted in Sockets in the Hafts — Hafted with
Intermediate Sockets — Compared with Axes of modern Savages — Mounted
in Forked Hafts — Mounted on Wooden Hafts — Compared with Adzes of
modern Savages — Mounted in Withes and Cleft Sticks — Modern methods of
Hafting Axes . . . 98
CHAPTER VII.
PICKS, CHISELS, GOUGES, ETC.
Small Hand Chisels — Gouges rare in Britain — Bastard Gouges . . . 173
CHAPTER VIII.
PERFORATED AXES.
Sharp at both Ends — Expanding at one End — Pointed at one End —
Adze-like in Character — Cutting at one End only — Used as Battle-axes
— Ornamented on the Faces — Large and Heavy — A Large Form common
in the North — Fluted on the Faces — Boring, the last Process —
Axe-hammers hollowed on the Sides — Axe-hammers ornamented on the
Faces — Frequently found in Barrows — But little used by modern
Savages . . . 183
CHAPTER IX.
PERFORATED AND GROOVED HAMMERS.
Of Peculiar Forms — Some of them Weapons, not Tools — Conical, Rounded
at each End — Made from Pebbles with Natural Holes — Of an Ornamented
Character — Made from Quartzite Pebbles — Purposes to which Applied —
Mauls for Mining Purposes — Of Wide Range — Net-sinkers . . . 217
CHAPTER X.
HAMMER-STONES, ETC.
With Depressions on the Faces — With Cup-shaped Depressions — Ridged
at the End — Made of Flint and Quartzite — Saddle-querns — Pestles
and Mortars — From Shetland and Orkney — Various forms of Mortars —
Hand-mills or Querns . . . 238
CHAPTER XI.
GRINDING-STONES AND WHETSTONES.
Uses for Sharpening Celts — Found in Barrows — Found with Interments —
Pebbles with Grooves in them . . . 261
CHAPTER XII.
FLINT FLAKES, CORES, ETC.
The Cone and Bulb of Percussion — Classification of Flakes — Polygonal
Cores — Numerous in Ancient Settlements — Localities where Abundant
— Not Confined to the Stone Period — The Roman Tribulum — In other
parts of the World — The Uses of Flakes — Flakes ground at the Edge —
Hafted Flakes — Flakes made into Saws — Serrated, as the Armature of
Sickles . . . 272
CHAPTER XIII.
SCRAPERS.
Used in Dressing Hides — Horseshoe-shaped — Kite-shaped and
Duck-bill-shaped — Some like Oyster Shells in Form — Double-ended and
Spoon-shaped — Found with Interments — Evidences of Wear upon them —
Found with Pyrites — The Modern form of Strike-a-light — Used with
Pyrites for producing Fire — The Flat and Hollowed Forms . . . 298
CHAPTER XIV.
BORERS, AWLS, OR DRILLS.
Found in different Countries — Of Minute Dimensions . . . 321
CHAPTER XV.
TRIMMED FLAKES, KNIVES, ETC.
From different Countries — Some Trimmed Flakes, probably Knives —
Knives from Barrows — Some possibly Lance-heads — Knives with one
Edge blunt — Of Oval Form — Sharpened by Grinding — Of Circular Form
— Of Semicircular and Triangular Form — The so-called “Picts’ Knives”
— Like those of the Eskimos — Daggers or Lance-heads — With Notches
at the Sides — Found in other Countries — Curved and Crescent-shaped
Blades — Curved Knives, probably Sickles — Ripple-marked Egyptian
Blades . . . 326
CHAPTER XVI.
JAVELIN AND ARROW HEADS.
Their earliest occurrence — Thought to fall from the Heavens —
Superstitions attaching to them — Worn as Amulets — An Egyptian Arrow
— Javelin-heads — Leaf-shaped Arrow-heads — Leaf-shaped Arrow-heads
pointed at both Ends — Lozenge-shaped Arrow-heads — Stemmed-Arrow-heads
— Stemmed and Barbed Arrow-heads — Unusual Forms — Found in Scotland
— Localities where found — The Triangular Form — Single-barbed
Arrow-heads — The Chisel-ended Type — Found in Barrows — Irish and
French Types — From various Countries — African and Asiatic Types —
South American Types — How attached to their Shafts — Bows in Early
Times . . . 360
CHAPTER XVII.
FABRICATORS, FLAKING TOOLS, ETC.
Their probable Uses — Used for working in Flint . . . 412
CHAPTER XVIII.
SLING-STONES AND BALLS.
Sling-stones Roughly Chipped from Flint — Ornamented Balls principally
from Scotland — The use of “Bolas” . . . 417
CHAPTER XIX.
BRACERS, AND ARTICLES OF BONE.
Wrist-guards or Bracers of Stone — The use of Arm-guards — Bone
Lance-heads and Pins — Needles of Bone — Hoes of Stag’s
Horn . . . 425
CHAPTER XX.
SPINDLE-WHORLS, DISCS, SLICKSTONES, WEIGHTS, AND CUPS.
Superstitions attaching to Whorls — Uses of Perforated Discs — Use of
Slick-stones — Stones as Burnishers and Weights — Stone Cups — Cups
turned in a Lathe — Amber Cup — Vessels made of Stone . . . 436
CHAPTER XXI.
PERSONAL ORNAMENTS, AMULETS, ETC.
Buttons of Jet, Shale, and Stone — Buttons found in Barrows — Necklaces
of Jet — Necklaces, Beads, Pendants, and Bracelets — Rings of Stone —
Pebbles found in Barrows — Lucky Stones and Amulets — Conclusions as
to the Neolithic Period . . . 452
_IMPLEMENTS OF THE PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD._
CHAPTER XXII.
CAVE IMPLEMENTS.
Compared with those from the River-drift — Formation of Caverns —
Deposition of Stalagmite — Different Ages of Caverns — Chronological
Sequence of Caverns — Fauna of the Caves — Dean Buckland’s Researches
— Kent’s Cavern, Torquay — Alteration in Structure of Flint — Trimmed
Flakes from Kent’s Cavern — Scrapers from Kent’s Cavern — Cores and
Hammers from Kent’s Cavern — Bone Harpoon-heads from Kent’s Cavern
— Fauna of Kent’s Cavern — Animal Remains associated with Works of
Art — Correlation of Kent’s Cavern with Foreign Caves — Brixham Cave
— Trimmed Flakes from the Brixham Cave — The Wookey Hyæna Den — The
Gower and other Welsh Caves — The Caves of Creswell Crags — General
Considerations . . . 473
CHAPTER XXIII.
IMPLEMENTS OF THE RIVER-DRIFT PERIOD.
The Discoveries at Abbeville and Amiens — Discoveries on the Continent
and in India — In the Valley of the Ouse — Biddenham, Bedford —
Hitchin, Herts — Valleys of the Cam and the Lark — Bury St. Edmunds
— Icklingham — High Lodge, Mildenhall — Redhill, Thetford — Santon
Downham — Bromehill, Weeting — Gravel Hill, Brandon — Lakenheath
— Shrub Hill, Feltwell — Hoxne, Suffolk — Saltley, Warwickshire —
Possibility of their occurrence in the North of England — Gray’s Inn
Lane, London — Highbury, London — Lower Clapton, Stoke Newington, &c.
— Ealing and Acton — West Drayton, Burnham, Reading — Oxford and its
Neighbourhood — Peasemarsh, Godalming — Valleys of the Gade and Colne
— Caddington — No Man’s Land, Wheathampstead — Valley of the Lea —
Valley of the Cray — Swanscomb and Milton Street — Ightham, Sevenoaks
— Limpsfield, Surrey — Valley of the Medway — Reculver — Thanington,
Kent — Canterbury and Folkestone — Southampton — Hill Head, Southampton
Water — The Foreland, Isle of Wight — Bemerton, Salisbury — Fisherton
and Milford Hill, Salisbury — Bournemouth and Barton Cliff — Valley of
the Axe . . . 526
CHAPTER XXIV.
FORMS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPLEMENTS FROM THE RIVER-DRIFT.
Flint Flakes — Trimmed Flakes — Pointed Implements — Sharp-rimmed
Implements — Differ from those of Neolithic Age — Their occurrence in
other parts of the World — Found in Africa and Asia — Their probable
Uses — The Civilization they betoken — Characteristics of their
Authenticity . . . 640
CHAPTER XXV.
ANTIQUITY OF THE RIVER-DRIFT.
Hypothetical case of River-action — Origin of River Systems — Amount
of Solid Matter in Turbid Water — Nature of Flood-deposits — Effects of
Ground-Ice — Deposits left on the Slopes of Valleys during Excavation
— Solvent power of Carbonic Acid — The results of the Deepening of
Valleys — Actual Phenomena compared with the Hypothetical — The
Denudation of the Fen Country — The Valley of the Waveney — The Valley
of the Thames — Deposits in the South of England — Deposits near
Salisbury — The Origin of the Solent — Deposits at Bournemouth — Breach
through the Chalk-range South of Bournemouth — The Question of Climate
— Evidence as to Climate — Association of Implements with a Quaternary
Fauna — Scarcity of Human Bones in the River-drift — Attempts to
formulate Chronological Data — Data from Erosion — Conclusion . . . 662
WOODCUT ILLUSTRATIONS.
* The cuts marked with an asterisk have been borrowed from various
sources, which are duly acknowledged in the body of the book.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
1. Egypt . . . 8
CHAPTER II.
ON THE MANUFACTURE OF STONE IMPLEMENTS IN PREHISTORIC TIMES.
2. Flint Core with Flakes replaced upon it . . . 20
2A. Gun Flint, Avlona, Albania . . . 21
3. Nucleus—Pressigny . . . 29
4. — — . . . 30
5. — — . . . 30
6. Flake — . . . 31
7. — — . . . 31
8. Eskimo Arrow-flaker . . . 38
9.* — — — . . . 38
10. — — — . . . 38
CHAPTER III.
CELTS.
11.* Celt with Gnostic Inscription . . . 61
CHAPTER IV.
CHIPPED OR ROUGH-HEWN CELTS.
12. Near Mildenhall . . . 68
13. — — . . . 68
14. Near Thetford . . . 69
15. Oving, near Chichester . . . 70
16. Near Newhaven . . . 71
17. Near Dunstable . . . 72
18. Burwell Fen . . . 72
19. Mildenhall . . . 73
20. Bottisham Fen . . . 73
21. Near Bournemouth . . . 74
22. Thetford . . . 74
23. Reach Fen, Cambridge . . . 75
24. Scamridge, Yorkshire . . . 76
25.* Forest of Bere, near Horndean . . . 76
25A.* Isle of Wight . . . 77
26. Cissbury . . . 81
27. — . . . 81
28. — . . . 82
29. — . . . 82
CHAPTER V.
CELTS GROUND AT THE EDGE ONLY.
30. Downs near Eastbourne . . . 88
31. Culford, Suffolk . . . 88
32. Near Mildenhall, Suffolk . . . 88
33. Sawdon, North Yorkshire . . . 89
34. Weston, Norfolk . . . 90
35. Mildenhall . . . 91
35A. Reach Fen . . . 92
36. Burwell Fen . . . 93
37. Thetford . . . 93
38. Undley Common, Lakenheath . . . 94
38A. East Dean . . . 95
39. Ganton . . . 95
40. Swaffham Fen . . . 95
41. Grindale, Bridlington . . . 96
42. North Burton . . . 96
CHAPTER VI.
POLISHED CELTS.
43. Santon Downham, Suffolk . . . 99
44. Coton, Cambridge . . . 101
45. Reach Fen, Cambridge . . . 102
46. Great Bedwin, Wilts . . . 102
47. Burradon, Northumberland . . . 103
48. Coton, Cambridge . . . 104
49. Ponteland, Northumberland . . . 105
50. Fridaythorpe, Yorkshire . . . 105
51. Oulston . . . 106
52. Burwell Fen . . . 107
52A.* Berwickshire . . . 108
53. Botesdale, Suffolk . . . 111
54. Lackford, Suffolk . . . 112
55. Dalmeny, Linlithgow . . . 113
56. Sprouston, near Kelso . . . 114
57. Nunnington, Yorkshire . . . 115
58. Burradon, Northumberland . . . 116
59. Livermere, Suffolk . . . 116
60. Ilderton, Northumberland . . . 117
61. Near Pendle, Lancashire . . . 118
62. Ness . . . 119
63. Gilling . . . 120
64. Swinton, near Malton . . . 121
65. Scamridge Dykes, Yorkshire . . . 121
66. Whitwell, Yorkshire . . . 122
67. Thames, London . . . 123
68. Near Bridlington . . . 124
69. Lakenheath, Suffolk . . . 125
70. Seamer, Yorkshire . . . 126
71. Guernsey . . . 127
72. Wareham . . . 127
73. Forfarshire . . . 128
74. Bridlington . . . 129
75. Caithness . . . 129
76. Gilmerton, East Lothian . . . 131
77. Stirlingshire . . . 132
78. Harome . . . 133
79. Daviot, near Inverness . . . 134
80. Near Cottenham . . . 135
81. Near Malton . . . 135
82. Mennithorpe, Yorkshire . . . 136
83. Middleton Moor . . . 137
83A. Keystone . . . 137
84. Near Truro . . . 138
84A.* Slains . . . 138
85. Near Lerwick . . . 139
86. Weston, Norfolk . . . 139
87. Acklam Wold . . . 140
88. Fimber . . . 140
89. Duggleby . . . 141
90. Guernsey . . . 141
90A. Wereham . . . 142
91.* Solway Moss . . . 151
92. Cumberland . . . 153
93.* Monaghan . . . 154
94. Axe from the Rio Frio . . . 155
95.* War-axe—Gaveoë Indians, Brazil . . . 156
96. Axe of Montezuma II . . . 157
97. Axe—Nootka Sound . . . 158
98. Axe in Stag’s-horn Socket—Concise . . . 159
99. Axe—Robenhausen . . . 159
99A. Penhouet . . . 161
99B.* New Guinea . . . 161
99C.* — — Adze . . . 162
100. Axe—Robenhausen . . . 163
101. Schraplau . . . 163
102.* Adze—New Caledonia . . . 164
103.* Adze—Clalam Indians . . . 165
104.* South-Sea Island Axes . . . 166
105.* Axe—Northern Australia . . . 168
106.* Hatchet—Western Australia . . . 170
CHAPTER VII.
PICKS, CHISELS, GOUGES, ETC.
107. Great Easton . . . 173
108. Bury St. Edmunds . . . 174
109. Burwell . . . 175
110. Near Bridlington . . . 175
111. Dalton, Yorkshire . . . 176
112. Helperthorpe . . . 177
113. New Zealand Chisel . . . 178
114. Burwell . . . 179
114A. Westleton Walks . . . 179
115. Eastbourne . . . 180
116. Willerby Wold . . . 181
117. Bridlington . . . 181
CHAPTER VIII.
PERFORATED AXES.
118. Hunmanby . . . 185
119.* Hove . . . 186
120. Llanmadock . . . 188
121. Guernsey . . . 189
122. Fireburn Mill, Coldstream . . . 190
123. Burwell Fen . . . 191
124. Stourton . . . 192
125. Bardwell . . . 193
126. Potter Brompton Wold . . . 194
127. Rudstone . . . 195
128. Borrowash . . . 196
129.* Crichie, Aberdeenshire . . . 197
130. Walsgrave-upon-Sowe . . . 199
131. Wigton . . . 201
132. Wollaton Park . . . 203
133. Buckthorpe . . . 204
134. Aldro’ . . . 205
135. Cowlam . . . 206
136. Seghill . . . 207
136A.* Wick, Caithness . . . 208
137. Kirklington . . . 209
138.* Winterbourn Steepleton . . . 210
139. Skelton Moors . . . 211
140. Selwood Barrow . . . 211
140A.* Longniddry . . . 212
141. Upton Lovel . . . 213
142. Thames, London . . . 213
143. Pelynt, Cornwall . . . 214
CHAPTER IX.
PERFORATED AND GROOVED HAMMERS.
144. Balmaclellan . . . 219
145. Thames, London . . . 219
145A.* Kirkinner . . . 220
146. Scarborough . . . 221
147. Shetland . . . 221
148.* Caithness . . . 222
149. Leeds . . . 222
150. Rockland . . . 223
151. Heslerton Wold . . . 224
152. Birdoswald . . . 225
153. Maesmore, Corwen . . . 226
154. Normanton, Wilts . . . 227
155. Redgrave Park . . . 228
156. Redmore Fen . . . 228
157.* Stifford . . . 229
158. Sutton . . . 231
159.* Ambleside . . . 236
CHAPTER X.
HAMMER-STONES, ETC.
160. Helmsley . . . 239
161. Winterbourn Bassett . . . 240
161A.* Goldenoch . . . 241
162. St. Botolph’s Priory . . . 242
163. Bridlington . . . 242
164. — . . . 243
165. — . . . 243
166. Scamridge . . . 246
167 & 168. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 248
168A.* Culbin Sands . . . 249
169. Bridlington . . . 249
170.* Holyhead . . . 251
171.* Ty Mawr . . . 253
172.* Holyhead . . . 254
173.* Pulborough . . . 254
174.* Shetland . . . 256
175.* — . . . 256
176.* — . . . 256
177.* — . . . 256
178.* — . . . 256
179.* — . . . 257
180.* Balmaclellan . . . 260
CHAPTER XI.
GRINDING-STONES AND WHETSTONES.
180A.* Lamberton Moor . . . 264
181. Dorchester . . . 265
182. Rudstone . . . 265
183. Fimber . . . 266
184. Cowlam . . . 267
185. Amesbury . . . 267
186.* Hove . . . 268
187.* Ty Mawr . . . 270
CHAPTER XII.
FLINT FLAKES, CORES, ETC.
188. Artificial Cone of Flint . . . 274
189. Weaverthorpe . . . 276
190. Newhaven . . . 278
191. Redhill, Reigate . . . 278
192. Icklingham . . . 278
193. Seaford . . . 278
194.* Tribulum from Aleppo . . . 285
195.* Admiralty Islands . . . 288
196. Charleston . . . 291
197. Nussdorf . . . 292
198. Australia . . . 293
199. Willerby Wold . . . 295
200. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 295
201. Scamridge . . . 296
202. West Cranmore . . . 296
CHAPTER XIII.
SCRAPERS.
203.* Eskimo Scraper . . . 298
204. Weaverthorpe . . . 300
205. Sussex Downs . . . 301
206. Yorkshire . . . 302
207. Helperthorpe . . . 302
208. Weaverthorpe . . . 302
209. Sussex Downs . . . 303
210. Yorkshire . . . 303
211. — Wolds . . . 303
212. — — . . . 304
213. Sussex Downs . . . 304
214. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 304
215. Sussex Downs . . . 305
216. — — . . . 306
217. — — . . . 306
218. Bridlington . . . 307
219. — . . . 307
220. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 307
221. — — . . . 308
222. French “Strike-a-light” . . . 314
223. Rudstone . . . 316
224. Method of using Pyrites and “Scraper” for striking a
light . . . 317
225. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 319
226. — — . . . 319
226A. North of Ireland . . . 320
CHAPTER IV.
BORERS, AWLS, OR DRILLS.
227. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 322
228. Bridlington . . . 322
229. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 323
230. Bridlington . . . 323
231. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 324
232. — — . . . 324
232A. Hastings . . . 325
232B. — . . . 325
232C. — . . . 325
232D.* Vindhya Hills . . . 325
232E.* — — . . . 325
232F.* — — . . . 326
CHAPTER XV.
TRIMMED FLAKES, KNIVES, ETC.
233. Cambridge (?) . . . 326
234. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 328
235. Yorkshire . . . 328
236. Bridlington . . . 329
237. Yorkshire . . . 329
238. Bridlington . . . 329
239. Castle Carrock . . . 329
240. Ford, Northumberland . . . 330
240A.* Etton . . . 330
241. Weaverthorpe . . . 331
242. Wykeham Moor . . . 331
243. Potter Brompton Wold . . . 332
244. Snainton Moor . . . 333
245. Ford . . . 333
246. Bridlington . . . 334
247. Cambridge Fens . . . 334
248. Scamridge . . . 335
249. Burwell Fen . . . 336
250. Saffron Walden . . . 336
251. Fimber . . . 337
252. Argyllshire . . . 338
253. Glen Urquhart . . . 338
254. Bridlington . . . 339
255. Overton . . . 339
256. Kempston . . . 340
256A. Eastbourne . . . 341
257. Kintore . . . 342
258. Newhaven, Derbyshire . . . 342
259. Harome, Yorkshire . . . 343
260. — — . . . 344
261. Crambe . . . 345
262. Walls, Shetland . . . 346
263. — — . . . 347
264. Lambourn Down . . . 349
265. Thames . . . 350
266. Burnt Fen . . . 350
267. Arbor Low . . . 352
267A. Sewerby . . . 355
268. Fimber . . . 356
269. Yarmouth . . . 356
270. Eastbourne . . . 357
CHAPTER XVI.
JAVELIN AND ARROW HEADS.
271.* Elf Shot . . . 365
272. Egypt . . . 369
273. Winterbourn Stoke . . . 371
274. — — . . . 371
275. — — . . . 371
276.* Calais Wold Barrow . . . 372
277.* — — — . . . 372
278.* — — — . . . 372
279.* — — — . . . 372
280. Icklingham . . . 373
281.* Gunthorpe . . . 373
282. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 373
283. — — . . . 374
284. Little Solsbury Hill . . . 374
285. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 374
286. Bridlington . . . 374
287 & 288. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 375
289. Lakenheath . . . 375
290 & 291. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 376
292 & 293. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 376
294. — — . . . 376
295.* Fyfield . . . 377
296. Bridlington . . . 378
297. Newton Ketton . . . 378
298 & 299. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 378
300. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 379
301. Amotherby . . . 379
302. Iwerne Minster . . . 379
303. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 380
304. — — . . . 380
305. Pick Rudge Farm . . . 380
305A. Ashwell . . . 381
306. Sherburn Wold . . . 381
307. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 381
308. — — . . . 381
309. — — . . . 381
310. — — . . . 381
311. — — . . . 381
312. — — . . . 381
313 & 314. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 382
314A. Icklingham . . . 382
315. Eddlesborough . . . 383
316. Reach Fen . . . 383
317. Isleham . . . 383
318. Rudstone . . . 384
318A. Dorchester Dykes . . . 384
319. Lambourn Down . . . 384
320. Fovant . . . 384
321. Yorkshire Moors . . . 385
322 & 323. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 385
323A.* Brompton . . . 386
324.* Isle of Skye . . . 387
325. Urquhart . . . 387
326. Aberdeenshire . . . 387
327. Glenlivet . . . 387
327A.* Philiphaugh . . . 388
328. Icklingham . . . 390
329. Langdale End . . . 390
330. Amotherby . . . 390
331. Weaverthorpe . . . 391
332. Lakenheath . . . 391
333. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 391
334. — — . . . 391
335. — — . . . 392
336. Bridlington . . . 392
337. — . . . 392
338. Fimber . . . 393
339. Hungry Bentley . . . 394
340.* Caithness . . . 394
341. Lakenheath . . . 395
342. Urquhart . . . 395
342A.* Fyvie, Aberdeenshire . . . 408
343. Switzerland . . . 408
344. Fünen, Denmark . . . 409
345.* Modern Stone Arrow-head . . . 409
CHAPTER XVII.
FABRICATORS, FLAKING TOOLS, ETC.
346. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 412
346A.* Corennie . . . 413
347. Bridlington . . . 413
348. Sawdon . . . 415
349. Acklam Wold . . . 415
CHAPTER XVIII.
SLING-STONES AND BALLS.
350. Yorkshire Wolds . . . 419
351.* Dumfriesshire . . . 420
352.* Towie . . . 421
CHAPTER XIX.
BRACERS, AND ARTICLES OF BONE.
353. Isle of Skye . . . 425
354. Evantown . . . 426
355. Devizes . . . 426
356.* Isle of Skye . . . 428
CHAPTER XX.
SPINDLE-WHORLS, DISCS, SLICKSTONES, WEIGHTS, AND CUPS.
357. Scampston . . . 438
358.* Holyhead . . . 438
359.* — . . . 438
360.* — . . . 438
361.* — . . . 442
362.* Scotland . . . 444
363.* Sutherlandshire . . . 444
364.* Faroe Islands . . . 445
365.* Broad Down or Honiton . . . 446
366.* Rillaton . . . 448
367.* Hove . . . 449
368.* Ty Mawr . . . 450
CHAPTER XXI.
PERSONAL ORNAMENTS, AMULETS, ETC.
369. Butterwick . . . 453
370. — . . . 453
371. Rudstone . . . 454
372. — . . . 454
373. Crawfurd Moor . . . 454
374.* Calais Wold Barrow . . . 455
375.* Assynt, Ross-shire . . . 457
376.* Pen-y-Bonc . . . 458
377.* Probable Arrangement of the Jet Necklace found at Pen-y-Bonc,
Holyhead . . . 459
378.* Fimber . . . 461
379.* Yorkshire . . . 462
380.* — . . . 462
381. Hungry Bentley . . . 464
381A.* Heathery Burn Cave . . . 464
382.* Jet—Guernsey . . . 464
383.* Bronze—Guernsey . . . 464
384. Kent’s Cavern . . . 465
385.* Ty Mawr . . . 466
CHAPTER XXII.
CAVE IMPLEMENTS.
386. Kent’s Cavern . . . 493
387. — — . . . 493
388. — — . . . 494
388A.* — — . . . 495
389. — — . . . 496
390. — — . . . 496
391. — — . . . 498
392. — — . . . 499
393. — — . . . 499
394. — — . . . 500
395. — — . . . 500
396. — — . . . 501
397. — — . . . 501
398. — — . . . 502
399. — — . . . 502
400. — — . . . 502
401. — — . . . 503
402. — — . . . 503
403. — — . . . 505
404. — — . . . 505
405. — — . . . 505
406. — — . . . 506
407. — — . . . 506
408. — — . . . 506
409. Brixham Cave . . . 514
410. — — . . . 515
411. — — . . . 515
412. — — . . . 516
413.* Wookey Hyæna Den . . . 518
413A.* Robin Hood Cave . . . 522
413B.* — — — . . . 523
413C.* — — — . . . 523
413D.* — — — . . . 523
413E.* — — — . . . 523
413F.* — — — . . . 524
413G.* Church Hole Cave . . . 524
413H.* — — — . . . 524
CHAPTER XXIII.
IMPLEMENTS OF THE RIVER-DRIFT PERIOD.
414. Biddenham, Bedford . . . 532
415. — — . . . 533
416. — — . . . 534
417. — — . . . 534
418. — — . . . 535
418A. Hitchin . . . 537
419. Maynewater Lane, Bury St. Edmunds . . . 540
419A. Grindle Pit, Bury St. Edmunds . . . 541
419B. Bury St. Edmunds . . . 542
419C. Nowton, near Bury St. Edmunds . . . 543
419D. Westley, near Bury St. Edmunds . . . 544
420. Rampart Hill, Icklingham . . . 545
421. Icklingham . . . 546
422. — . . . 546
423. — . . . 547
424. — . . . 548
425. High Lodge . . . 548
426. — — . . . 549
426A. — — . . . 549
427. Redhill, Thetford . . . 552
428. — — . . . 553
429. — — . . . 554
430. — — . . . 555
431. — — . . . 555
432. Whitehill, Thetford . . . 556
433. Santon Downham . . . 557
434. — — . . . 558
435. — — . . . 559
436. — — . . . 560
437. — — . . . 561
438. Bromehill, Brandon . . . 562
439. Gravel Hill, Brandon . . . 563
440. — — — . . . 564
441. — — — . . . 564
442. — — — . . . 565
443. — — — . . . 566
444. Valley of the Lark, or of the Little Ouse . . . 567
445. Shrub Hill, Feltwell . . . 570
446. — — — . . . 570
447. — — — . . . 571
448. — — — . . . 571
449. Hoxne . . . 575
450. — . . . 576
450A. Saltley . . . 579
451. Gray’s Inn Lane . . . 582
452. Hackney Down . . . 583
453. Highbury New Park . . . 585
453A.* Lower Clapton . . . 587
453B.* Stamford Hill . . . 588
453C.* Stoke Newington Common . . . 588
453D.* — — — . . . 589
454. Ealing Dean . . . 590
455. Peasemarsh, Godalming . . . 595
455A.* Caddington . . . 599
455B.* — . . . 599
455C.* — . . . 600
455D.* — . . . 600
455E.* — . . . 601
455F.* — . . . 601
455G.* — . . . 601
455H.* Wheathampstead . . . 601
456. Dartford Heath . . . 606
456A. Bewley, Ightham . . . 609
457. Reculver . . . 612
458. Near Reculver . . . 614
459. — — . . . 615
460. Reculver . . . 616
461. — . . . 616
462. Studhill . . . 618
463. Thanington . . . 619
464. Canterbury . . . 620
464A.* — . . . 621
464B. Folkestone . . . 622
465. Southampton . . . 623
466. Hill Head . . . 625
467. The Foreland, Isle of Wight . . . 627
468. Lake . . . 628
469. Bemerton . . . 629
470. Highfield . . . 629
471. Fisherton . . . 630
472. Milford Hill, Salisbury . . . 633
473. Fordingbridge . . . 634
474. Boscombe, Bournemouth . . . 635
475. — — . . . 636
476. Bournemouth . . . 637
477. Broom Pit, Axminster . . . 638
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
In the following pages I purpose to give an account of the various
forms of stone implements, weapons, and ornaments of remote antiquity
discovered in Great Britain, their probable uses and method of
manufacture, and also, in some instances, the circumstances of
their discovery. While reducing the whole series into some sort
of classification, as has been done for the stone antiquities of
Scandinavia by Worsaae, Montelius, and Sophus Müller, for those of
France by Messrs. Gabriel and Adrien de Mortillet, and for those of
Ireland by Sir William Wilde, I hope to add something to our knowledge
of this branch of Archæology by instituting comparisons, where
possible, between the antiquities of England and Scotland and those of
other parts of the world. Nor in considering the purposes to which the
various forms were applied, and the method of their manufacture, must I
neglect to avail myself of the illustrations afforded by the practice
of modern savages, of which Sir John Lubbock and others have already
made such profitable use.
But before commencing any examination of special forms, there are
some few general considerations on which it seems advisable to enter,
if only in a cursory manner; and this is the more necessary, since
notwithstanding the attention which has now for many years been
devoted to Prehistoric Antiquities, there is seemingly still some
misapprehension remaining as to the nature and value of the conclusions
based upon recent archæological and geological investigations.
At the risk therefore of being tedious, I shall have to notice once
more many things already well known to archæologists, but which, it
would appear from the misconceptions so often evinced, even by those
who speak and write on such matters, can hardly be too often repeated.
Not the least misunderstood of these subjects has been the |2|
classification of the antiquities of Western Europe, first practically
adopted by the Danish antiquaries, under periods known as the Iron,
Bronze, and Stone Ages; the Iron Age, so far as Denmark is concerned,
being supposed to go back to about the Christian era, the Bronze Age to
embrace a period of one or two thousand years previous to that date,
and the Stone Age all previous time of man’s occupation of that part
of the world. These different periods have been, and in some cases may
be safely, subdivided; but into this question I need not now enter, as
it does not affect the general sequence. The idea of the succession is
this:—
1. That there was a period in each given part of Western Europe, say,
for example, Denmark, when the use of metals for cutting-instruments
of any kind was unknown, and man had to depend for his implements and
weapons on stone, bone, wood, and other readily accessible natural
products.
2. That this period was succeeded by one in which the use of copper,
or of copper alloyed with tin—bronze—became known, and gradually
superseded the use of stone for certain purposes, though it continued
to be employed for others; and
3. That a time arrived when bronze, in its turn, gave way to iron or
steel, as being a superior metal for all cutting purposes; which, as
such, has remained in use up to the present day.
Such a classification into different ages in no way implies any exact
chronology, far less one that would be applicable to all the countries
of Europe alike, but is rather to be regarded as significant only of a
succession of different stages of civilization; for it is evident that
at the time when, for instance, in a country such as Italy, the Iron
Age may have commenced, some of the more northern countries of Europe
may possibly have been in their Bronze Age, and others again still in
their Stone Age.
Neither does this classification imply that in the Bronze Age of
any country stone implements had entirely ceased to be in use, nor
even that in the Iron Age both bronze and stone had been completely
superseded for all cutting purposes. Like the three principal
colours of the rainbow, these three stages of civilization overlap,
intermingle, and shade off the one into the other; and yet their
succession, so far as Western Europe is concerned, appears to be
equally well defined with that of the prismatic colours, though the
proportions of the spectrum may vary in different countries.[1] |3|
The late Mr. James Fergusson, in his Rude Stone Monuments,[2] has
analyzed the discoveries made by Bateman in his exploration of
Derbyshire barrows, and on the analysis has founded an argument against
the division of time into the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages. He has,
however, omitted to take into account the fact that in many of the
barrows there were secondary interments of a date long subsequent to
the primary.
I have spoken of this division into Periods as having been first
practically adopted by the Danish school of antiquaries, but in fact
this classification is by no means so recent as has been commonly
supposed. Take, for instance, the communication of Mahudel to the
_Académie des Inscriptions_ of Paris[3] in 1734, in which he points
out that man existed a long time in different countries using
implements of stone and without any knowledge of metals; or again, the
following passage from Bishop Lyttelton’s[4] “Observations on Stone
Hatchets,” written in 1766:—“There is not the least doubt of these
stone instruments having been fabricated in the earliest times, and by
barbarous people, before the use of iron or other metals was known, and
from the same cause spears and arrows were headed with flint and other
hard stones.” A century earlier, Sir William Dugdale, in his “History
of Warwickshire,”[5] also speaks of stone celts as “weapons used by
the Britons before the art of making arms of brass or iron was known.”
We find, in fact, that the same views were entertained, not only by
various writers[6] within the last two centuries, but also by many of
the early poets and historians. There are even biblical grounds for
argument in favour of such a view of a gradual development of material
civilization. For all, including those who invest Adam with high
moral attributes, must confess that whatever may have been his mental
condition, his personal equipment in the way of tools or weapons could
have been but inefficient if no artificer was instructed in brass and
iron until the days of Tubal Cain, the sixth in descent from Adam’s
outcast son, and that too at a time when a generation was reckoned at a
hundred years, instead of at thirty, as now. |4|
Turning, however, to Greek and Roman authors, we find Hesiod,[7] about
B.C. 850, mentioning a time when bronze had not been superseded by
iron:—
Τοῖς δ᾿ ἧν χάλκεα μὲν τεύχεα, χάλκεοι δέ τε οἷκοι
Χαλκῶ δ᾿ εἰργάζοντο, μέλας δ᾿ οὐκ ἓσχε σίδηρος.
Lucretius[8] is even more distinct in his views as to the successive
Periods:—
“Arma antiqua manus, ungues, dentesque fuerunt
Et lapides, et item sylvarum fragmina rami—
Posterius ferri vis est ærisque reperta;
Sed prior æris erat quam ferri cognitus usus—
Ære solum terræ tractabant, æreque belli
Miscebant fluctus et vulnera vasta ferebant.”
So early as the days of Augustus it would appear that bronze arms were
regarded as antiquities, and that emperor seems to have commenced the
first archæological and geological collection on record, having adorned
one of his country residences “rebus vetustate ac raritate notabilibus,
qualia sunt Capreis immanium belluarum ferarumque membra prægrandia quæ
dicuntur gigantum ossa et arma heroum.”[9]
We learn from Pausanias[10] what these arms of the heroes were, for
he explains how in the heroic times all weapons were of bronze, and
quotes Homer’s description of the axe of Pisander and the arrow of
Meriones. He also cites the spear of Achilles in the temple of Pallas,
at Phaselis, the point and ferrule of which only were of bronze; and
the sword of Memnon in the temple of Æsculapius, at Nicomedia, which
was wholly of bronze. In the same manner Plutarch[11] relates that when
Cimon disinterred the remains of Theseus in Scyros he found with them a
bronze spear-head and sword.
There is, indeed, in Homer constant mention of arms, axes, and adzes
of bronze, and though iron is also named, it is of far less frequent
occurrence. According to the Arundelian marbles,[12] it was discovered
only 188 years before the Trojan war, though of course such a date must
be purely conjectural. Even Virgil preserves the unities, and often
gives bronze arms to the heroes of the Æneid, as well as to some of the
people of Italy—
“Æratæque micant peltæ, micat æreus ensis.”[13] |5|
The fact that in the Greek[14] language the words χαλκεύς and
χαλκεύειν remained in use as significant of working in iron affords
a very strong, if not an irrefragable argument as to bronze having
been the earlier metal known to that people. In the same way the
continuance in use of bronze cutting implements in certain religious
rites—as was also the case with some stone implements which I shall
subsequently mention—affords evidence of their comparative antiquity.
The Tuscans[15] at the foundation of a city ploughed the pomærium with
a bronze plough-share, the priests of the Sabines cut their hair with
bronze knives, and the Chief Priest of Jupiter at Rome used shears
of the same metal for that purpose. In the same manner Medea has
attributed to her both by Sophocles and Ovid[16] a bronze sickle when
gathering her magic herbs, and Elissa is represented by Virgil as using
a similar instrument for the same purpose. Altogether, if history is
to count for anything, there can be no doubt that in Greece and Italy,
the earliest civilized countries of Europe, the use of bronze preceded
that of iron, and therefore that there was in each case a Bronze Age of
greater or less duration preceding the Iron Age.
It seems probable that the first iron used was meteoric, and such may
have been that “self-fused” mass which formed one of the prizes at the
funeral games of Patroclus,[17] and was so large that it would suffice
its possessor for all purposes during five years. Even the Greek word
for iron (σίδηρος) may not improbably be connected with the meteoric
origin of the first known form of the metal. Its affinity with ἀστήρ,
often used for a shooting star or meteor, with the Latin “_sidera_” and
our own “star” is evident.
Professor Lauth,[18] moreover, interprets the Coptic word for iron,
ⲂⲈⲚⲒⲠⲈ, as “the stone of heaven” (Stein des Himmels) which implies that
in Egypt also its meteoric origin was acknowledged.
Among the Eskimos[19] of modern times meteoric iron has been employed
for making knives. Where an excess of nickel is present, the meteoric
iron cannot well be forged,[20] but Dana seems to be right in saying,
as a general rule it is perfectly malleable.
Some, however, are of opinion that during the time that bronze was
employed for cutting instruments, iron was also in use for |6| other
purposes.[21] At the first introduction of iron the two metals were,
no doubt, in use together, but we can hardly suppose them to have been
introduced simultaneously; and if they had been, the questions arise,
whence did they come? and how are we to account for the one not having
sooner superseded the other for cutting purposes?
Another argument that has been employed in favour of iron having been
the first metal used, is that bronze is a mixed metal requiring a
knowledge of the art of smelting both copper and tin, the latter being
only produced in few districts, and generally having to be brought from
far, while certain of the ores of iron are of easy access and readily
reducible,[22] and meteoric iron is also found in the metallic state
and often adapted for immediate use. The answer to this is, first, that
all historical evidence is against the use of iron previously to copper
or bronze; and, secondly, that even in Eastern Africa, where, above all
other places, the conditions for the development of the manufacture of
iron seem most favourable, we have no evidence of the knowledge of that
metal having preceded that of bronze; but, on the contrary, we find in
Egypt, a country often brought in contact with these iron-producing
districts, little if any trace of iron before the twelfth dynasty,[23]
and of its use even then the evidence is only pictorial, whereas the
copper mines at Maghara are said to date back to the second dynasty,
some eight hundred years earlier. Agatharchides,[24] moreover, relates
that in his time, _circa_ B.C. 100, there were found buried in the
ancient gold mines of Egypt the bronze chisels (λατομίδες χαλκᾶι) of
the old miners, and he accounts for their being of that metal by the
fact that at the period when the mines were originally worked the use
of iron was entirely unknown. Much of the early working in granite may
have been effected by flint tools. Admiral Tremlett has found that
flakes of jasper readily cut the granite of Brittany.[25]
To return, however, to Greece and Italy, there can, as I have already
said, be little question that even on historical grounds we must accept
the fact that in those countries, at all events, the use of bronze
preceded that of iron. We may therefore infer theoretically that the
same sequence held good with the |7| neighbouring and more barbarous
nations of Western Europe. Even in the time of Pausanias[26] (after
A.D. 174) the Sarmatians are mentioned as being unacquainted with the
use of iron; and practically we have good corroborative archæological
evidence of such a sequence in the extensive discoveries that have been
made of antiquities belonging to the transitional period, when the use
of iron or steel was gradually superseding that of bronze for tools or
weapons, and when the forms given to the new metal were copied from
those of the old. The most notable relics of this transitional period
are those of the ancient cemetery at Hallstatt, in the Salzkammergut,
Austria, where upwards of a thousand graves were opened by Ramsauer,
of the contents of which a detailed account has been given by the
Baron von Sacken.[27] The evidence afforded by the discoveries in the
Swiss lakes is almost equally satisfactory; but I need not now enter
further into the question of the existence and succession of the Bronze
and Iron Ages, on which I have dwelt more fully in my book on Ancient
Bronze Implements.[28]
I am at present concerned with the Stone Age, and if, as all agree,
there was a time when the use of iron or of bronze, or of both
together, first became known to the barbarous nations of the West of
Europe, then it is evident that before that time they were unacquainted
with the use of those metals, and were therefore in that stage of
civilization which has been characterized as the Stone Age.
It is not, of course, to be expected that we should discover direct
contemporary historical testimony amongst any people of their being
in this condition, for in no case do we find a knowledge of writing
developed in this stage of culture; and yet, apart from the material
relics of this phase of progress which are found from time to time in
the soil, there is to be obtained in most civilized countries indirect
circumstantial evidence of the former use of stone implements, even
where those of metal had been employed for centuries before authentic
history commences. It is in religious customs and ceremonies—in rites
which have been handed down from generation to generation, and in which
the minute and careful repetition of ancient observances is indeed
often the essential religious element—that such evidence is to be
sought. As has already been observed by others, the transition from
ancient to venerable, from venerable to holy, is as natural as it is
universal; |8| and in the same manner as some of the festivals and
customs of Christian countries are directly traceable to heathen times,
so no doubt many of the religious observances of ancient times were
relics of what was even then a dim past.
Whatever we may think of the etymology of the word as given by
Cicero,[29] Lactantius,[30] or Lucretius,[31] there is much to be
said in favour of Dr. E. B. Tylor’s[32] view of superstition being
“the standing over of old habits into the midst of a new and changed
state of things—of the retention of ancient practices for ceremonial
purposes, long after they had been superseded for the commonplace uses
of ordinary life.”
Such a standing over of old customs we seem to discover among most of
the civilized peoples of antiquity. Turning to Egypt and Western Asia,
the early home of European civilization, we find from Herodotus[33] and
from Diodorus Siculus,[34] that in the rite of embalming, though the
brain was removed by a crooked iron, yet the body was cut open by a
sharp Ethiopian stone.
In several European museums are preserved thin, flat, leaf-shaped
knives of cherty flint found in Egypt, some of which will be mentioned
in subsequent pages. In character of workmanship their correspondence
with the flint knives or daggers of Scandinavia is most striking. Many,
however, are provided with a tang at one end at the back of the blade,
and in this respect resemble metallic blades intended to be mounted by
means of a tang driven into the haft.
In the British Museum is an Egyptian dagger-like instrument of flint,
from the Hay collection, still mounted in its original wooden handle,
apparently by a central tang, and with remains of its skin sheath. It
is shown on the scale of one-fourth in Fig. 1. There is also a polished
stone knife broken at the handle, which bears upon it in hieroglyphical
characters the name of PTAHMES, an officer.
[Illustration: EGYPT.—Fig. 1.]
Curiously enough the bodies of the chiefs or Menceys of the Guanches in
Teneriffe[35] were also cut open by particular persons set apart for
the office with knives made of sharp pieces of obsidian. |9|
The rite of circumcision was among those practised by the Egyptians,
but whether it was performed with a stone knife, as was the case with
the Jews when they came out of Egypt, is not certain. Among the latter
people, not to lay stress on the case of Zipporah,[36] it is recorded
of Joshua,[37] that in circumcising the children of Israel he made use
of knives of stone. It is true that, in our version, the words חַרְבוֹת
צוּרִים are translated sharp knives, which by analogy with a passage
in Psalm lxxxix. 44 (43 E.V.), is not otherwise than correct; but the
Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, and Septuagint translations all give knives
of stone;[38] and the latter version, in the account of the burial of
Joshua, adds that they laid with him the stone knives (τὰς μαχαίρας τὰς
πετρίνας) with which he circumcised the children of Israel—“and there
they are unto this day.” Gesenius (_s. v._ צוּר) observes upon the
passage, “This is a circumstance worthy of remark; and goes to show at
least, that knives of stone were found in the sepulchres of Palestine,
as well as in those of north-western Europe.”[39] In recent times the
Abbé Richard, in examining what is known as the tomb of Joshua at some
distance to the east of Jericho, found a number of sharp flakes of
flint as well as flint instruments of other forms.[40]
Under certain circumstances modern Jews make use of a fragment of flint
or glass for this rite. The occurrence of flint knives in ancient
Jewish sepulchres may, however, be connected with a far earlier
occupation of Palestine than that of the Jews. It was a constant custom
with them to bury in caves, and recent discoveries have shown that,
like the caves of Western Europe, many of these were at a remote period
occupied by those unacquainted with the use of metals, whose stone
implements are found mixed up with the bones of the animals which had
served them for food.[41]
Of analogous uses of stone we find some few traces among classical
writers. Ovid, speaking of Atys, makes the instrument with which he
maimed himself to be a sharp stone,
“Ille etiam saxo corpus laniavit acuto.”
The solemn treaties among the Romans were ratified by the |10|
Fetialis[42] sacrificing a pig with a flint stone, which, however,
does not appear to have been sharpened. “Ubi dixit, porcum saxo silice
percussit.” The “religiosa silex”[43] of Claudian seems rather to
have been a block of stone like that under the form of which Jupiter,
Cybele, Diana, and even Venus were worshipped. Pausanias informs us
that it was the custom among the Greeks to bestow divine honours on
certain unshaped stones, and ΖΕΥΣ ΚΑΣΙΟΣ is thus represented on coins
of Seleucia in Syria, while the Paphian Venus appears in the form of
a conical stone on coins struck in Cyprus. The Syrian god from whom
Elagabalus, the Roman emperor, took his name seems also to have been an
unhewn stone, possibly a meteorite.
The traces, however, of the Stone Age in the religious rites of Greece
and Rome are extremely slight, and this is by no means remarkable when
we consider how long the use of bronze, and even of iron, had been
known in those parts of Europe at the time when authentic history
commences. We shall subsequently see at how early a period different
implements of stone had a mysterious if not a superstitious virtue
assigned to them. I need only mention as an instance that, in several
beautiful gold necklaces[44] of Greek or Etruscan workmanship, the
central pendant consists of a delicate flint arrow-head, elegantly set
in gold, and probably worn as a charm. Nor is the religious use of
stone confined to Europe.[45] In Western Africa, when the god Gimawong
makes his annual visit to his temple at Labode, his worshippers kill
the ox which they offer, with a stone.
To come nearer home, it is not to be expected that in this country,
the earliest written history of which (if we except the slight account
derived from merchants trading hither), comes from the pen of foreign
conquerors, we should have any records of the Stone Age. In Cæsar’s
time, the tribes with which he came in contact were already acquainted
with the use of iron, and were, indeed, for the most part immigrants
from Gaul, a country whose inhabitants had, by war and commerce, been
long brought into close relation with the more civilized inhabitants
of Italy and Greece. I have elsewhere shown[46] that the degree of
civilization which must be conceded to those maritime tribes far
exceeds what is accorded by popular belief. The older occupants
of Britain, who |11| had retreated before the Belgic invaders,
and occupied the western and northern parts of the island, were no
doubt in a more barbarous condition; but in no case in which they
came in contact with their Roman invaders do they seem to have been
unacquainted with the use of iron. Even the Caledonians,[47] in the
time of Severus, who tattooed themselves with the figures of animals,
and went nearly naked, carried a shield, a spear, and a sword, and wore
iron collars and girdles; they however deemed these latter ornamental
and an evidence of wealth, in the same way as other barbarians esteemed
gold.
But though immediately before and after the Christian era the knowledge
of the use of iron may have been general throughout Britain, and though
probably an acquaintance with bronze, at all events in the southern
part of the island, may probably date many centuries farther back, it
by no means follows, as I cannot too often repeat, that the use of
stone for various purposes to which it had previously been applied
should suddenly have ceased on a superior material, in the shape of
metal, becoming known. On the contrary, we know that the use of certain
stone weapons was contemporary with the use of bronze daggers, and
the probability is that in the poorer and more inaccessible parts of
the country, stone continued in use for many ordinary purposes long
after bronze, and possibly even iron, was known in the richer and more
civilized districts.
Sir William Wilde informs us that in Ireland[48] “stone hammers,
and not unfrequently stone anvils, have been employed by country
smiths and tinkers in some of the remote country districts until a
comparatively recent period.” The same use of stone hammers and anvils
for forging iron prevails among the Kaffirs[49] of the present day.
In Iceland[50] also, perforated stone hammers are still in use for
pounding dried fish, driving in stakes, for forging and other purposes;
“knockin’-stones”[51] for making pot-barley, have till recently been in
use in Scotland, if not still employed; and I have seen fruit-hawkers
in the streets of London cracking Brazil nuts between two stones.
With some exceptions it is, therefore, nearly impossible to say whether
an ancient object made of stone can be assigned with |12| absolute
certainty to the Stone Period or no. Much will depend upon the
circumstances of the discovery, and in some instances the form may be a
guide.
The remarks I have just made apply most particularly to the weapons,
tools, and implements belonging to the period more immediately
antecedent to the Bronze Age, and extending backwards in time through
an unknown number of centuries. For besides the objects belonging
to what was originally known by the Danish antiquaries as the Stone
Period, which are usually found upon or near the surface of the soil,
in encampments, on the site of ancient habitations, and in tumuli,
there are others which occur in caverns beneath thick layers of
stalagmite, and in ancient alluvia, in both cases usually associated
with the remains of animals either locally or entirely extinct. In
no case do we find any trace of metallic tools or weapons in true
association with the stone implements of the old ossiferous caverns,
or with those of the beds of gravel, sand, and clay deposited by the
ancient rivers; and, unlike the implements found upon the surface
and in graves, which in many instances are ground or polished, those
from the caves, and from what are termed by geologists the Quaternary
gravels, are, so far as at present known, invariably chipped only, and
not ground, besides as a rule differing in form.
This difference[52] in the character of the implements of the two
periods, and the vast interval of time between the two, I pointed out
in 1859, at the time when the discoveries of M. Boucher de Perthes,
in the Valley of the Somme, first attracted the attention of English
geologists and antiquaries. Since then, the necessity of subdividing
what had until then been regarded as the Stone Age into two distinct
stages, an earlier and a later, has been universally recognized; and
Sir John Lubbock[53] has proposed to call them the Palæolithic and
the Neolithic Periods respectively, terms which have met with almost
general acceptance, and of which I shall avail myself in the course of
this work. In speaking of the polished and other implements belonging
to the time when the general surface of the country had already
received its present configuration, I may, however, also occasionally
make use of the synonymous term Surface Period for the Neolithic, and
shall also find it convenient to treat of the Palæolithic Period under
two subdivisions—those of the River-gravels and of the |13| Caves, the
fauna and implements of which are not in all cases identical.
In passing the different kinds of implements, weapons, and ornaments
formed of stone under review, I propose to commence with an examination
of the antiquities of the Neolithic Period, then to proceed to the
stone implements of human manufacture discovered imbedded with ancient
mammalian remains in Caverns, and to conclude with an account of
the discoveries of flint implements in the Drift or River-gravels
in various parts of England. But before describing their forms and
characters, it will be well to consider the method of manufacture by
which the various forms were produced.
|14|