120 HUMAN HISTOEY 



or any similar form in the Oligocene, is a type from or near the 

 hne of human ascent, then we cannot allow Oligocene eoliths to 

 be genuine artefacts, and there is no reason why, if we reject 

 Oligocene eoliths, we should consider Miocene or Pliocene eoliths 

 to be genuine, (b) Numerous observations have been made 

 showing that stones similar to eohths are formed under natural 

 conditions of pressure, wave action, and so on. It is of particular 

 interest to note that even the rostro-carinate type can be thus 

 formed.^ (c) Upon the whole eoliths are only found where other 

 stones of the same composition are found, whereas palaeoliths 

 may be found anywhere — the deduction, of course, being that 

 eoliths, inasmuch as they are formed under natural agencies, 

 remain associated with other stones of the same composition 

 whereas palaeoliths were widely distributed by those who used 

 them. The question of eoliths is very far from being settled. 

 Lest it be thought that the difificulties in the way of accepting 

 eoliths as genuine have been exaggerated owing to some bias, it 

 may be mentioned that the chief deduction we shall draw from 

 human history as a whole would be considerably strengthened if 

 eoliths could be regarded as genuine artefacts. If we cannot 

 accept eoliths as without question genuine, it does not mean that 

 before the Palaeohthic period man did not make and use stone 

 implements. Undoubtedly he did so. But it may be from the 

 nature of the case that it is impossible to recognize these instru- 

 ments. ^ 



9. In a warm period of the Pleistocene, now almost universally 

 identified with the third genial epoch, occur the first implements 



stock has been separate from the rest of the primate stock since early in the 

 Tertiary period. If this conclusion is well founded, the argument derived from 

 the course of evolution as outlined above is certainly weakened. 



1 SoUas, loc. cit., p. 72. 



2 With reference to this subject Breuil says with great force that ' si la nature, 

 exceptioiinellement sans doute, peut produire des objets aussi semblables a des 

 types industriels parfaitement dejinis et connus comme tels dans leiirs milieux normaux 

 en deJuyrs de toute possibility d'erreur, a combien plus forte raison doit-on se montrer 

 circonspect a I'egard des manifestations les plus elementaires de I'activite humaine, 

 et se montrer exigeant avant de fonder sur leur constatation si problematique 

 des theories depassant si formidablement ce qui est acquis d'une maniere definitive 

 et en toute evidence ! ' (U Anthropologie, vol. xxi, p. 407). For examples of the 

 expression of similar views see Obermaier, Der Mensch der Vorzeit, p. 412, and 

 Dechelette, loc. cit., vol. i, p. 22. The weight of expert opinion is against the 

 acceptance of eoliths as genuine. Among the more distinguished supjiorters of 

 the theory may be mentioned Rutot in Belgium, Ray Lankester and Reid Moir 

 in England, Verwom in Germany, and de Mortillet in France. Among those 

 who are sceptical are Boule, Breuil, and Dechelette in France, Schmidt and 

 Obermaier in Germany, and Sollas in England. 



