294 Report S.A.A. Advancement of Science. 



against their artificial character. Nevertheless Palaeolithic and 

 Neolithic implements are sometimes met with in equal quantity, 

 while, if the Eoliths are, as is claimed, man's first artefacts, one 

 would expect them to be barely distinguishable from Nature's work. 

 Their association with others, in which the trimming, though of the 

 same rude kind, is arranged in definite patterns, is the sole ground 

 upon which they can be accepted. 



Even the better-defined implements of the second sub-group are 

 of so primitive a kind that their artificial character is still the sub- 

 ject of controversy. Yet, apart from the inferior quality of the 

 trimming, and the fact that most are fashioned out of naturally 

 broken fragments of stone, they are identical with the commoner 

 accepted flake-tools of the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods. 



Two series of the more differentiated Eoliths and flake-Eoliths, 

 and a set of Neolithic implements of the best quality, for comparison, 

 are represented by the accompanying illustrations (Plates i, 2, 

 and .3). 



Plate I shews a .series of straight concave and convex-edged 

 scrapers. A., B. and C. are true Eoliths, while D., E. and F. are 

 flake-Eoliths. A. and D. are good examples of the concave scrapers. 

 It will be noticed that there is quite a wide difference in the quality 

 of the workmanship of these two. There is a still greater differ- 

 ence between the better of these and the Neolithic example D. I 

 have South African Palaeolithic specimens which, in point of work- 

 manship, fill the gap. There is no essential difference between the 

 disputed Eolithic examples and the accepted Neolithic ones. B., C, 

 E. and F. are four commonly recurring varieties of scraper, usually 

 designated by the really descriptive adjectives, circular, rectangular, 

 long and broad. All of these can be matched by Palaeolithic and 

 Neolithic examples, while one is still to be counted among the domes- 

 tic appliances of certaui savage peoples. Compare the circular 

 scraper with the Neolithic specimen B. Here, again, I can produce 

 South African Palaeolithic specimens, intermediate as regards quality 

 of workmanship. This evolution in delicacy of finish is carried a 

 stage further in some beautiful little examples which I have recently 

 obtained at Riverton, in association wdth minute scrapers like those 

 frojn Taaibosch Spruit. They are about one-half the diameter of 

 the Neolithic example. 



Plate 2 shews an extremely interesting series of implements. 

 They are very typical of the Eolithic stage of culture, being rarely 

 met with in more advanced assemblages. They are probably all 

 scrapers. A. and B. are double-edged scrapers. It will be noticed 

 that the chipping of the one edge is in the reverse direction to that 

 of the other. C, D., E. and F. are very similar implements, but 

 both edges are chipped on the same side. They are an eloquent 

 testimony to the artificial character of the Eoliths. It is incredible 

 that a long, tapering point like that of F. could be hacked out by 

 blind agencies. 



I have above alluded to Prestwich's classification of the Eoliths. 

 His essav in " Controverted Questions of Geology " (1896) is still 



