192 REV. RY A. BULLEN, B.A., ON EOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS. 
(those of the new stone age). Other terms have been 
suggested recently. The late Sir J. W. Dawson, F.R.S., has 
adopted “palanthropic” and “neanthropic” as expressive 
of the same series of facts. But the terms paleeolithic and 
neolithic, for which we are indebted to Sir John Lubbock 
(Lord Avebury), are not likely now to be displaced from the 
position they have held so long. 
The geological distinction between these two types of 
implements is that the Paleolithic implements* are of 
forms which were used by men contemporary with the now 
extinct mammalia—the cave-lion, cave-bear, mammoth, 
cave-hyena, species of rhinoceros and hippopotamus, the 
Irish deer, ete.; while the Neolithic implements (though 
some of them nearly resemble the Paleolithic) are either 
found scattered on the surface and generally unstained, 
or are unearthed from burial mounds, where they have 
constituted part of the interment. 
But, although the terms “paleeolithic” and “neolithic’ 
are used in the above senses, the forms of tools and weapons 
included under these terms have lingered in one district or 
another down to recent or comparatively recent times :—the 
Paleolithic in Tasmania,f Egypt, and North America ;§ the 
Neolithic in Egypt, North America, New Guinea and other 
islands of Melanesia, South America, and numerous other 
places. Their occurrence in North America{ is a testimony 
to the late retreat of the ice-sheet there at the close of the 
glacial epoch. 
SII. Koliths: their name and authenticity.—We tum now, 
however, to a third class of stone tools which, unlike the 
paleolithic and neolithic, has not yet passed beyond the 
stage of criticism into that of general acceptance. 
, 
* H. B. Woodward, Geology of England and Wales, 2nd Ed., p. 479. 
Evans, Ancient Stone Implements, p. 472. 
+ Prestwich, Controverted Questions in Geology, p. 72. Dr. E. Tylor, 
Journ. Anthrop. Institute, November, 1893, p. 141. 
t Forbes, Bulletin Liverpool Museum II, Nos. 3 and 4, p. 115. 
§ Mercer, Antiquity of Man in the Delaware Valley, p. 6, says :— 
“Beyond doubt it has been demonstrated in the last five years that 
North-American Indians continually manufactured chipped stones more 
or less resembling the Drift types, and in fact scattered the whole 
surface of the United States with them.” Evans, Anctent Stone Imple- 
ments, 2nd Ed., passim. 
|| Boyle, Archeological Report, Toronto, 1896-97, p. 49, Figs. 6-10. 
Dr. E. W. Claypole, American Geologist, November, 1896, p. 306. 
