F. J. Bennett — Eolithic Imjilements at Belfast. 127 



•which may be freely translated, " If facts go against you, assume the 

 more boldly." 



And so, having freed himself from both geological and physical 

 evils, in the form of narrow balances at the bank of time, he holds 

 himself free to go boldly where biological speculations permit* It is 

 magnificent, but it is not science. 



VII. — EoLiTHio Implements at Belfast and at Bloomsbury. 

 By F. J. Bennett, F.G.S. 



MK. J. W. KNOWLES, M.E.I.A., of Ballymena, read a paper ^ 

 on what appeared to him to be flints chipped similarly to 

 the eoliths, which he had found in the Interglacial gravels of Ireland. 

 This gave rise to a discussion, in which five speakers in succession 

 gave reasons, or rather expressed opinions, adverse to their artificial 

 character ; and as these seemed based on some misconceptions, and 

 also as I was the only one who spoke for them, and was told I must 

 be brief, and so could not fully reply to them, I do so in the present 

 form, and I state, as far as I remember, what took place in as few 

 words as possible. 



Mr. Knowles himself took a neutral position, but suggested that, 

 if they were implements at all, they might have been used as 

 scrapers for scraping hasraatite. 



The objections were : that these so-called eoliths were found in 

 such extraordinary numbers that thejf might be the result of 

 natural causes, and that their upholders must disprove this ; that 

 the flints in question were those of the Clay-with-Flints, a deposit 

 due to the chemical dissolution of the Chalk-with-Flints ; that, if 

 admitted to be artificial, they could not be older than the Palseolithic 

 implements of the high levels, as they were both found in the same 

 deposits ; that similar flints were to be found in the Boulder-clay, 

 and, as man was post-Glacial, that was a positive refutation. 



Professor Boyd Dawkins, LL.D,, F.K.S., took a prominent part 

 in the discussion, and it was from him indeed that most of the 

 objections came. 



Replying to the objections, I would say that, as to their extra- 

 ordinary numbers, " in countless thousands " as had been stated,- 

 that might be expected from their very rudeness. If these are the 

 very earliest tools of the earliest men we should, on evolutional 

 grounds, expect them to range from natural forms (selected in their 



^ Paper read before British Association, Belfast, Sept. 1902. 



2 The new pit sunk by Mr. Harrison and myself last year at Parsonage Farm, Ash, 

 confirms most fully those sunk in 1894. I took a careful note of the percentage 

 of worked as compared with the uuworked stones, and this varied from 4 to 9 per 

 cent. ; out of the many ' cart-loads ' of stones got out the worked stones would not 

 make even one barrow-load, and as a matter of fact this pit, sunk 12'x8'x5', only 

 yielded some 200 specimens. I understand that to the Eoliths exhibited at Blooms- 

 bury a label is attached with these words, " Supposed to be the work of man." Now 

 this might lead many to assume that the PalaBoliths were undoubtedly the work of 

 man, and yet there is no real 2}Toof oi this, and the same words might apply to both 

 Eolithic and Palaeolithic implements (so-called). 



