With the working of high level dry gravels now such a rarity, students of palaeolithic archaeology have to be extremely grateful for the large collections of implements made from them when various pits were open. Although these collections have drawbacks, the chances of recovering so great a quantity of specimens from so many localities may never occur again. It is well-known that the majority of the large palaeolithic collections were made by the purchasing of specimens from workmen employed in the gravel pits. The provenance or horizon of any artifact may therefore be debatable, as it depends on the integrity of unknown people. There are stories of hand-axes from prolific, famous sites being taken to other sites in order to increase their market value. Some of these stories are undoubtedly true, but it would have required a thorough knowledge of typology and Pleistocene geology to have perpetrated any large-scale fraud and, as none of the large collections of labelled specimens have ever been in marked contrast with more recent finds, their validity can be generally accepted. If forgeries were purchased it is of no consequence for they would be evident as such. The only serious objection to these older collections being used as a basis for palaeolithic study is that they rarely give a true representation of the artifacts contained in the deposit: flakes were rarely preserved and ruder workmanship was often unrecognized.