Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:49:10.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Disputed Beads from the Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2016

Get access

Extract

It is not improbable that, in the eager search for flint implements, some of us may underrate the importance of objects which might serve to throw light upon the interesting subject of the antiquity of the human race. Anxiety not to lose any evidence bearing upon this point will, doubtless, be accepted as a sufficient excuse for re-opening the question as to the perforated balls found in the Drift, displaying proofs of the workmanship of man. We have had conflicting opinions upon these objects, but I am not aware that anything decisive has been published. It is desirable, under such circumstances, to obtain as many facts as possible, and get the question settled. My first acquaintance with these objects occurred about fifteen years ago; for as I was uncovering some Anglo-Saxon remains in the Kempston Gravel-pit, near Bedford, I found several round stones perforated through ; and so strongly was I impressed at the time that they were the personal ornaments of the ancient chieftain just exhumed, that I actually presented them to the Archaeological Society as Saxon beads. Subsequent examinations of the Drift gravels, however, convinced me that the balls were of an earlier period than the Anglo-Saxon, whether works of art or natural productions. They are described by some naturalists to be specimens of the Chalk fossil named as the Coscinopora globularis; but the great question for consideration is, how did they become perforated? The theory put forth by some objectors is that they were bored by an insect or worm when they were in their soft, primitive condition; but it is difficult to understand how the most voracious insect could seize upon a perfectly round object and drill through it, most accurately, a thoroughly straight tunnel of uniform bore.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1862

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)