Page images
PDF
EPUB

like the majority of the pointed implements from this locality, of a hard, close-grained sedimentary rock and sometimes ridged (ie. with three faces), sometimes flat (with four faces, two being approximately parallel). This difference has often been noticed in flakes from all parts, but I do not think much stress ought to be laid on it. Although most are pointed, there are a few exceptions presenting the very unusual form of a chisel1; in these it will be seen that the cutting edge must have been produced by a blow given perpendicularly to the length of the flake, and before the flake was knocked off its parent core. At this locality, as stated by Mr Rickard, the Neolithic and Palaeolithic implements are sometimes found mixed up on the surface, but the difference in weathering between flakes of the two ages formed from this rock is so marked, that I think no doubt can be felt to which class these ought to be referred. They are formed indifferently from flat and ridged flakes, the longest being 6 inches long with a cutting edge 1 inches across; they all have a square end bevelled off to a sharp cutting edge. There are also a large number of small chert flakes from this locality, from 1 inch to 14 inches long, which may very probably be of the same age.

The relative abundance of flake forms found at East London as compared with Port Elizabeth, which Mr Rickard suggests may be due to difference in the age of the two series, one representing the River-drift, the other the Cave-Period of Europe, may possibly be equally well accounted for by the fact that at Port Elizabeth the implements were found in a gravel, in the deposition of which the thicker and stronger implements would alone escape destruction. At East London, on the other hand, the earthy bed in which they occur would preserve both indifferently; and wherever both forms occur, the flakes naturally outnumber the implements by an immense majority. At the same time the other explanation is by no means impossible. A number of pointed implements were also collected in

1 Plate V.

various localities in the Diamond fields and between them and the coast'. Among them is a beautiful specimen of the somewhat rare thin oval form, with an edge worked on it all round, formed from a black basaltic rock. The rest are of ordinary types.

The success which has followed Mr Rickard, wherever he made a stay sufficiently long to allow him to search for imple ments, over so wide an extent of country, not very far short of the size of England, comprising an area of about 11,000 square miles, indicates that their distribution is far more general in this region than in Europe. From this fact we may fairly infer that the country must have been either much more thickly populated, or as is more probable, inhabited for a longer time by the races using these tools.

I cannot conclude without thanking Mr Rickard warmly for the readiness with which he put his whole collection at my disposal for exhibition this evening. My best thanks are also due to Mr E. B. Tawney for his kindness in determining the rocks from which the several implements are formed.

[blocks in formation]

Plates I. and II. From 'The Junction'; see pp. 59, 62.

Plate III. and

pp. 59, 62, 63.

Plate IV. fig. 2.

Plate V. From

Plate VI., fig. 1. fig. 2.

Plate IV. fig. 1. From Port Elizabeth (series B); see

From Port Elizabeth (series C); see pp. 60, 63.
East London; see pp. 60, 61, 62, 64.

From near Bullfontein, Diamond fields; see p. 65.
From Pandam Fontein, a few miles south of Du Toit's
pan, Diamond fields; made of indurated fine ash;
see p. 65.

The specimens figured in Plates I. III. IV. V. and VI. (fig. 2), have been presented by Mr Rickard to the Woodwardian Museum.

Plate II. represents a specimen which he has been kind enough to add to my collection.

APPENDIX.

The measurements of some of the better implements are here given, with references to figures of similar specimens in Evans's British Stone Implements.

N.B. The figures referred to represent with truth only the outline, the difference in fracture making the other details less similar,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

E. From various localities between Diamond Fields and East London.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

VII. NOTES ON SOME NEOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA, by Mr J. C. RICKARD, Cambridge. Communicated by A. F. GRIFFITH, Esq., B.A., Christ's College.

[March 14, 1881.]

[The following notes on some Neolithic implements collected in South Africa by Mr Rickard form a natural sequel to his notes on the Palaeolithic implements from the same district, which I had the pleasure of communicating to the Society in November last. Mr Rickard's classification of this whole series of remains will be found at the commencement of his notes in the preceding paper. A. F. G.]

IN many localities of South Africa, in fact, almost everywhere, implements of stone of various forms are to be met with lying exposed on the surface of the soil; it is difficult in many cases even to determine whether they belong to the Palaeolithic or to the Neolithic age; this difficulty is much increased when we attempt to assign any of those which are undoubtedly Neolithic to their particular subdivision of the period. For instance, one cannot with any certainty decide whether a given specimen is the work of the present race of Bushmen, made possibly within the last fifty years, or whether it belongs to any older period included in the vague term prehistoric. Under these circumstances it is better merely to

arrange such specimens according to the forms which they present, rather than by a process of mere guesswork to attempt any chronological distinctions.

There are, however, good reasons for separating those implements which are found under more definite circumstances, such as those occurring in kitchen-middens, or in caves, or which exhibit a peculiar style of workmanship, and for applying to them distinctive names.

Surface finds. First, as to Neolithic implements found on the surface; these may be divided into knife-like or spearshaped flakes, scrapers, rubbers, mullers, grindstones or hones, perforated balls, &c. The examples of knife-like and spear-like flakes exhibited, are from East London, Kei river, Queenstown, Stormberg, Burghersdorp, Orange river, Fauresmith, the junction of the Riet and Modder rivers, the Diamond Fields, Boshoff, Richmond, and various localities of the Uitenhage district. One rude implement from Burghersdorp, probably a spear-head, is entirely different from any of the others, and is the only one of that type I have seen.

The scrapers with one end chipped to a semicircular form are from the same localities as the flakes; another kind of scraper formed from a circular disc, brought to a sharp edge all round by secondary chipping, which is all done on one side of the instrument, seems to graduate into a thicker and more core-like form, in which also the base is flat, and the chipping confined to one side. I exhibit English specimens of these three types to shew the great resemblance they bear to the African; this is the more remarkable, as scrapers with their secondary chipping may be considered to be more highly specialized forms than mere flakes.

A triangular scraper from the Orange river-the only South African example I have seen-is of an uncommon type. A small scraper from East London, with a broadly curved

« PreviousContinue »