2l6 EOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS FROM WALDERSLADR. 



17. A. Rutot. " Note sur la Decouverte d' importants Gisements de Silex 



tallies dans les collines de la Flandre Occidentale. " 



Bull. Soc. d' Anthropologic de BriixeHes, xviii. (1900). 



18. R. D. Darbishire, " Implements from the Chalk Plateau." 



Proc. Manchester Literary and Philosophical Soc. xlvi. (igoi). 



ig. Annual Report of Wellington College Natural Science Society (1901). 



20. A. Rutot, " Sur une Preuve de I'existence de THomme sur la Crete de 



I'Artois avant la Fin du Pliocene." 



Bull. Soc. Beige de Geologic (1901). 



21. F. J. Bennett, "Antiquity of Man.' 



Chatham and Rochester Observer (1901). 



22. A. Rutot, " Sur la distribution des Industries PalaEolithiques dans les 



Couches Quarternaires de la Belgique " 



Comptes-Rendus du Congrl-s International d' Anthropologic et 

 d' Archeologie prehistoriqnes X lie Session. Paris (1900). 



23. E. R. Harrison, " Eolithic Flint Implements." 



South Eastern Naturalist (1902). 



24. A. Rutot, " Defense des Eolithes.'' 



Bull. Soc. d' Anthropologic de Bruxelles. xx. (1902). 



NOTE. 



At the reading of the above paper at the meeting on March 8th, 1902, 

 Mr. A. S. Kennard made some remarks which are embodied in the following 

 note, to which the author has replied. These observations will most con- 

 veniently be given here : — 



" It is of the utmost importance that the attention of Essex geologists 

 should be called to these Eolithic implements since without a doubt they will 

 be found in the county if proper search is made. Examples which may be 

 of this age have been found in the Thames gravels at Grays and Ilford but 

 what is wanted is to find these implements in the higher and older gravels. 

 Whether it is right to assign such names as 'borers,' ' spokeshaves,' 

 'scrapers,' &c., to these implements may well be questioned. We know 

 nothing of the customs of these primitive folk and our only knowledge of the 

 existence of these primitive folk is derived from these fhnts. It is unsafe 

 even to compare them with existing savages since all or nearly all of these 

 have reached a higher scale in development than that which the Eolithic folk 

 had attained. Even with the later Palaeolithic implements we know next to 

 nothing of their probable uses and this remark applies to many Neolithic tools 

 also. The only ground on which the use of such names can be defended is 

 the necessity of using terms which will be understood by all students of 

 anthropology, hence their employment should refer to shape only and not to 

 probable use. 



" These primitive implements are known from Belgium, France, Egypt 

 and South Africa, but it does not follow that they are all of the same age. 

 Each district must be worked in detail before we can speak definitely. 



A. S. Kennard." 



