The view that Grime's Graves and similar flint-mines belonged to a part of the Neolithic age, some archæologists considering them early and others late, was not seriously challenged until Mr. Reginald Smith in “Archæologia” (Vol. LXIIL), and in the “Report on the Excavations at Grime's Graves, 1914,” drew attention to the remarkable parallels between the flint industry of Grime's Graves, and that of the transitional period between Moustier and Aurignac of which the typical site is Abri Audi. To many that evidence has seemed conclusive, but while I recognise how excellent a case for a “Cave” date may be made from the implements alone, I yet feel that, viewing all the available facts, there is still much to be said for considering such flint-mines Neolithic. This is the view held by some at least of our continental confreres who are well acquainted with implements from Mousterian and Aurignacian deposits, and those from flint-mines similar to Grime's Graves, and they still place the latter in the Neolithic age.

First of all I must express my thanks for the opportunity given me to exhibit before the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia specimens from my collection of Flint and other Stone Implements found at Mary Tavy, Devon, and for the observations made on them by Mr. Reginald Smith, F.S.A., and Mr. W. G. Clarke.

My collection was commenced about twelve years ago, and an interesting series has been accumulated, the 133 specimens exhibited being representative of the various types found.

Although there is no question as to the “humanity” of the flint specimens, those made of slate and other rocks seem likely to cause a diversity of opinion, and are therefore of greater interest and I hope may induce other prehistoric archæologists to make a special study of them. Both the flint and other stone implements probably belong to the same period; there seems to be some doubt as to which age they can be assigned to, but the late Neolithic or Early Bronze age appears to be the most likely.

It has been to me a fascinating occupation to follow in the foot-steps of my mentor, the veteran prehistorian, Worthington G. Smith, in the study of flint implements in parts of the Lea valley in mid-Herts. At times, I have had the honour of supplementing, in a small way, his well known labours.

One day, in 1903, I had a little while to wait for the train at Hertingfordbury, near Hertford, just above the junction of the rivers Mimram and Lea. Mr. Smith had found implements at Hertford; but none had, as yet, been discovered at Hertingfordbury. A large gravel pit, on the west side of the road, looked tempting. A very hasty search in the failing light revealed a flint (Fig. 62B) of promising appearance in the tough, upper, ochreous gravel, at 10ft. depth from the surface. By strenuous exertions: with hands, to extract it; and with feet, to keep my balance on a tiny ledge, I managed to secure the stone: and catch the train ! This was in the early days of my flint-hunting. But I have never found another quite like it. It has the appearance of an adze, of kite-shaped outline, with an obtusely pointed basal end, for mounting. Very few implements from the river drift, show, to my thinking, any signs of having been made for mounting.

In 1909 I found, near the crest of the North Downs above Eynsford, several unshapely pieces of flint showing signs of having been flaked.

The flint is spicular and of a pale honey colour, some pieces quite unpatinated, but others very slightly patinated and with occasional flecks of siliceous high glaze. Judging from the appearance of the cortex, the flint has come from the clay-with-flints which caps the chalk in this neighbourhood.

Practically every piece of honey coloured flint to be found here bears a bulb or a bulb hollow, and none but the honey-coloured flint has been worked.

The site is in a narrow strip of woodland about 20 ft. deep, and just below the crest of the North Downs. It is in the bank of “hill-wash” formed by these trees that rabbits have burrowed and thrown up the flints under description. These flints have been shown to several collectors but the shapes are so crude and, apparently, purposeless that I could get no suggestions as to their use, or information about comparable finds.

In his chapter on the forms of implements from the River Drift, Sir J. Evans mentions certain specimens which, are “flat on one face and convex on the other,” and among these he recognises one type with a thick butt (“shoe-shaped”) and another thinner one, for which he proposes the term “flat-faced.” As however, the thick specimens are by no means always typically shoe-shaped, and the one characteristic which binds the two groups together is the comparative flatness of one face, there seems to be no sufficient reason for limiting the term “flat-faced,” and in the following pages it is applied to the whole series, whether thick or thin.

In January, 1916, we discovered the east end of a “Cissbury type,” station at Great Melton, Norfolk, on the south bank of the River Yare, and at the same time Mr. J. E. Sainty, B.Sc., discovered the west end, including a pit in which flakes were exposed in a layer about a foot from the surface, resting on a stiff loam into which the flakes had sunk in some places. The layer was not continuous, but at one place there was a solid mass of cores and flakes, the latter ranging in size from huge specimens to quite minute pieces. The flakes, with which were mingled several potboilers, varied in colour from blue to white, and were so tightly packed together as only to be extracted with difficulty. In a very few cases the striking platforms were facetted.

The present position of the science of prehistoric research in England cannot be said to be satisfactory. New and important discoveries are continually being made, and for some years past there has been a marked awakening of interest in this highly important subject. But this rejuvenescence has been accompanied by endless dissensions and disputations amongst archaeologists, and though by the fire of controversy truth is revealed, yet a dispassionate observer would marvel at the utter divergence of the views expressed, and conclude that the foundations upon which prehistorians wish to build are in a very shaky and unsound condition. And in the opinion of the author the dispassionate observer would be right. It would be regarded by any ordinary person as unthinkable that an engineer, for instance, should be unfamiliar with the exact nature of the materials with which he works, and the manner in which these materials fracture. One can imagine the great divergence of opinion which would be shown at meetings of engineering societies were such ignorance of fundamental facts present. And what is true of engineering is true equally of all real science. Now what is the position regarding flint, which is the raw material of most prehistorical research ?

Primitive man is now being studied from so many standpoints that a comprehensive grasp of the whole subject is fast becoming an impossibility; but in view of the increase of conflicting evidence, every opportunity should be taken of adjusting rival claims, and testing our results by comparison with the more elaborate classifications of the Continent. In the present paper no verdict is given, but evidence is collected so fully in agreement with certain results obtained across the Channel, that there is a prima facie case for the revision of certain general principles that are in danger of lapsing into dogma.

I must apologise for again addressing you on the subject of Grime's Graves. My work, however, has kept me in a practically flintless country, and I have been unable to accumulate any fresh material except of Roman date. Although the villa we have been excavating in our spare time is very interesting it is not an appropriate subject for the Prehistoric Society.

Owing to the kindness of the Trustees of the Weeting Estate, Mrs. T. S. Hall and Mr. C. Cockburn, we were able to do some fresh work at Grime's Graves in 1916, and on behalf of those who took part in it I wish to express our cordial appreciation for the permission.

I was associated in the work of last year, 1916, with Mr. A. Leslie Armstrong, F.S.A. (Scot.), and Mr. and Mrs. E. T. Lingwood, and the pieces exhibited are some of the best and most interesting things which came to light during this work.

The site which is described in the following paper was discovered by Mr. E. Payton, B.A., of Hambleden, Bucks., in May, 1913, and I had hoped to have his co-operation in describing it and the fine series of implements which he and Mrs. Payton (members of this Society) and I have accumulated from it. The war, however, has prevented Mr. Payton from carrying out his portion of the task, and I shall, therefore, include a description of some, only of my own pieces, hoping that the fine series now deposited by Mr. and Mrs. Payton in the Hambleden Museum will be described and illustrated later on, and amplify the large list of pieces now recorded.