Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2013
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 ?
page 383 note * For a critical description of these Kentian flints see “Science Progress,” No. 43, Jan., 1917, pp. 431–440Google ScholarPubMed.
page 384 note * Kennard, A. S.: “The Pleistocene Succession in England.” Proc. Prehistoric Soc. of East Anglia. 1915–1916, Vol. IIGoogle Scholar., Part 2,
page 387 note * Rutot, , Bull., Soc, Préhist. de France, 1907–1908 (two papers). Annual Report Smithsonian Institution, 1913, p. 522Google Scholar. Römer, : “The Bone Caves of Ojcow,” London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1884Google Scholar. Keith, : “Ancient types of Man,” 1911, p. 111Google Scholar.
page 388 note * An illuminating article bearing somewhat upon this question, though not touching upon flint implements, will be found in Huxley's, “Lay Sermons,” pp. 176–197Google Scholar.
page 391 note * This idea has already been suggested and explained by Prof. Barnes, Alfred, Proc. P.S.E.A., Vol. I., Part 4, pp. 449–454Google Scholar.
