Of the many fields of enquiry opened out by the immense mental activity of this century, there is none which promises to be more fruitful than that which has been won by the joint labours of the geologist, the biologist, and the student of prehistoric archæology. The geologist, beginning his story of the earth at the time when the rains first descended and the seas first began to beat on the coast lines, has laid as it were on a map before us the revolutions in climate and geography that it has undergone. He tells us of continents submerged, and of ocean bottoms lifted up into mountains, and that more rapidly than was formerly supposed, and he points out to us that side by side with the ever-changing conditions of life there were everchanging living forms. Group after group pass before the field of vision, each connected with that which preceded it, and each bearing more and more highly differentiated features until man, “Homo sapiens,” appears, the last born, as well as the highest and noblest of creatures. This has been the work of the biologist; while the prehistorian in the meanwhile has raised the study of man's early work and industries to the rank of a science by the use of a purely inductive method, and has accumulated materials which enable us to establish a fairly complete sequence of events, and as fresh discoveries are continually being made, this sequence becomes more and more complete from the earliest dawn of man's intellect to the foreground of the borders of history.

In approaching the subject of the patination of flint implements, I am profoundly impressed with the very great difficulties of the subject; so much so indeed that I feel that some initial apology is called for. It requires some courage, nay, one may say temerity, to attack a series of problems that bristle with difficulties of a most formidable kind, about which nothing is known; and for a solution of which chemical and physical knowledge of a very high order, backed up by the aid of full laboratory equipment, is required. All this is wanting in my own case; but on the other hand I have a large first-hand acquaintance with the flints in question; for many years I have devoted much attention to the conditions in which patination is found, jand to its manifold varieties—it has been my constant endeavour to co-ordinate given patinations with other factors more or less ascertainable in connection with the flints. In this way I think I have arrived at conclusions which, though by ao means complete in themselves, may at any rate serve as points of departure or of support in the further investigations which are urgently required. I propose to divide my paper into three sections—(1) General considerations bearing on the study of patina, (2) The conditions under which patina is produced, (3) The changes in flint associated with the production of patina.

The estuarine peaty shale still to be seen in the cliff section below the Martello tower at Clacton has a thickness of 10 or 12 feet, and seems to pass gradually into a dark clay which we find as the top layer of the shore deposit. On the shore below the Martello, and east of the stone groyne, the following layers were observed:—

1. Dark, stiff clay, without shells. To be seen only on the upper part of the shore, near the sea-wall. Further down, it. has been denuded. Thickness, c. 9 in. from shore sand.

2. A shelly layer, containing much Unıo littoralis: more sandy than the last. c. 3 in.

3. A dark layer with occasional shells. Lower limit variable. c. 4 in.

4. Blue loam: one of the most characteristic features of the deposit. Shells of Unio occur. Helix was also found. There is also in some parts much wood. Partly embedded in this layer most of the bones are found on the shore surface. Eastwards the layer grows less homogeneous and comes to rest directly on the London Clay. I am not sure what is the full thickness of this layer, but, where it is covered by others, I have dug 18 in. into it without reaching anything else. Accumulation of water and return of the tide prevented deeper trenching, but I think if we gave 2 feet as the total thickness we should not be far wrong.

5. A very thin layer, made up almost wholly of fragments of Unio.

6. Sand, shells, and broken flints. Thickness varies; 3 in. and 5 in. were measured in two trenches.

7. Stony layer. Flint pebbles, broken flints, some sand, some shells. Astragalus of deer, horn core (probably of deer), tibia of deer were found in trenching this layer.

Few English deposits have aroused more disputation among geologists than the Crag beds of Norfolk and Suffolk, and on many of the points raised there is as yet no general agreement. This more particularly applies to the sands, gravels, and clays associated with the Norwich Crag, one school considering them part of the Crag formation and therefore Pliocene, and another believing them to be glacial and Pleistocene. Doubt on this matter has had an important bearing on the discovery of Sub-Crag implements in Norfolk, though I believe that the evidence is now incontrovertible. With regard to the basement-bed of the Crag, whether of the Coralline, Red, or Norwich Crag, which appear to have been successive deposits in the order given, the geological evidence as to position and antiquity—though not as to the conditions under which it was deposited—is not disputed. Mr. F. W. Harmer, F.G.S., says:—“In consequence of a combined movement of elevation iu the southern part of this region, and of subsidence towards the north, the whole Crag basin moving as on a pivot, its southern margin was gradually shifted, the sea retiring towards the north.

On Thursday, June 15th, 1911, accompanied by Mr. H. H. Halls, I went to Lyng to look over the Manor Farm for Neolithic implements, or other traces of prehistoric man. During the day, while looking round a pit, I noticed a number of flint flakes projecting from one side. I collected a few of these, and, upon examination, noticed they were different from anything I had seen on the surface. The following day I shewed these specimens to Mr. W. G. Clarke, explaining to him the position in which I had found them, and he suggested they might probably come from the remains of a floor, either Neolithic or Palæolithic. I visited the pit several times after this, each time getting further specimens. Quite recently Mr. Clarke, Mr. Halls, and myself, visited the pit, when, after careful examination, Mr. Clarke had no hesitation in stating that in his opinion the site was the remains of a floor, but whether Neolithic or Late Palffiolithic it is difficult to determine, the number of finished implements being so small, though the geological evidence would favour the latter view.

The determination of human flaking as against Nature's work upon flints has always been a vexed question with archæologists. It appeared apparently in the first place with the discovery of the Neolithic arrow-heads, as in some old books we find these relics described as “elf-darts,” which clearly proves that a supernatural origin was accorded to them. Though unfortunately we have no records of the discussions held over these first discovered Neoliths, we may I think assume that in those days the archæological camp was split into two sharply defined sections, one declaring that the arrow-heads were the outcome ot supernatural agencies, the other that some ancient race of men had fashioned them. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no such discussions have for many long years raged round these particular flaked flints, and they are now accepted as being as much evidences of man's work as is a dining-room table or a fireside arm-chair.

In 1884 I was initiated into the study ot flint and its fracture while accompanying Mr. John French, of Felstead, Essex, on his rambles alter “Chipped Flints,” some of which were for many years accepted as Palæolithic implements. From 1887-92 my apprenticeship continued under the late John Allen Brown, F.G.S., who did so much pioneer work among the Thames gravels. From those days to the present I have spent most of my spare time “Flint-hunting” in Essex, East Anglia, and the London District.

From 1896 to 1900 (in view of the geological positions in which they were found), I gradually became dissatisfied with the law laid down by authorities, that facetted flints and bulbous flakes were prıma facie evidence of Man; and I began to wonder whether man had really made them, or whether Nature in her diverse methods had chipped them during the more recent geological formations. These doubts were strengthened in 1906 by the discovery that my treasured Palæos from Felstead were probably derived from the base of the Westleton gravels, which out-cropped near the fields in which we found them. In a pit I found chipped and facetted flints of absolutely meaningless shape.

On Friday, October 6th, 1911, I received a message from Mr. Laughlin, of Messrs. Bolton & Laughlin, brickmakers, Ipswich, to the effect that one of his workmen, while removing some surface clay to get at the underlying glacial gravel, had turned out some human bones. I at once went down to the pit where the discovery had been made and found that a portion of a human skull attached to an almost complete cranial cast had been recovered. The workmen pointed out that two bones were protruding from the spot whence the skull had been derived, and so it was arranged for the remainder of the skeleton to be dug up on the following day. Messrs. Woolnough, Canton, and Snell accompanied me, and we afterwards drew up a short report of our observations. This report is as follows:—

“We, the undersigned, were present at, and superintended, the digging out of the human remains found at Messrs. Bolton & Laughlin's pit, Ipswich, on Saturday, October 7th, 1911. We all most carefully examined the section of decalcified Boulder Clay, under which the bones lay, before any digging commenced, and were absolutely convinced that no grave had ever been dug on the spot before.

Mr. Moir has described the circumstances under which the skeleton was found and has given the evidence on which these bones have been assigned to the period preceding the formation of the Boulder Clay. It remains for me to give a description of the skeleton and to draw certain inferences as to the kind of man to which it belonged. Before doing so, however, I should like to mention a matter which may be of service to future investigators. So fragile were the remains, such was the degree of disintegration, that Mr. Moir found it impossible to extract the bones from the matrix in which they were embedded. He therefore, most wisely, cut out the stratum in which the bones lay as solid blocks, which were forwarded to me in the condition in which they were excavated. On reaching the Museum we impregnated each block with a solution of gelatine and then proceeded to expose the bones by removing from them the overlying boulder clay piecemeal and leaving them still in situ on the underlying glacial sands. The removal of the boulder clay required extreme care and great patience, but the advantage of leaving the bones attached to the underlying parts of the blocks became very apparent when we came to reconstruct the position of parts of the skeleton.

In my Presidential Address delivered at the first meeting of the Society in 1908 I referred to the possibility that we might be able to trace in this part of the world the various periods which have hitherto been chiefly associated with deposits in rockshelters and caves in France and elsewhere. The object of the present paper is to bring before the members of the Society the present position of this question so far as my own researches are concerned with a view to stimulating further enquiries into the subject.

Before passing to details it will be necessary to give a brief account of the scope of the enquiry and to sum up our knowledge of the rock shelter and Cave periods of the Palæolithic Age so far as it is possible to do so. To give an adequate up-to-date description of the subject is not a very easy matter, for so far as I am aware no detailed account of the various Cave periods has been written in recent time, and advances in knowledge have to be sought for in the periodical publications of many different societies of various countries, a task which to most of us who are not within reach of a first-class library is practically impossible. Even when these can be consulted it rarely happens in my experience that sufficient attention is paid by illustration and description to the many varieties of types of implement associated with the different periods.