546 >S^. H. Warren — The Eolithic Controversy. 



V. — Some Points in the Eolithic Controversy.^ 

 By S. Hazzledine Warken, F.G.S. 



11HE controversy which has raged round the problem of the 

 Eoliths seems little nearer a satisfactory solution than it was 

 upon the publication of Sir Joseph Prestwich's papers of 1889, 1891, 

 and 1892.* The present article is an endeavour to place certain sceptical 

 considerations before the readers of the Geological Magazine. 



In two papers published by the Anthropological Institute,^ I showed 

 that crushing and mechanical movement under pressure were capable 

 of reproducing the edge-chipping which is characteristic of the eoliths 

 of Kentish type. One of the most notable forms produced by such 

 processes is that of the chipped notch, eitlier single or in various 

 combinations, such as the double notch with point (often called the 

 bow-shaped scraper), two notches crushed out from opposite sides of 

 a tabular flint producing an astonisliing simulation of a drill with 

 reverse working, or notches in combination with other edge-chipping. 



It is understood that mechanical force can only effect a repro- 

 duction of an eolith when operating upon suitable raw material : that 

 is to say, upon flints of plano-convex or tabular form such as those of 

 which the Kentish eoliths are made. In fact, it is only in working 

 upon this special class of raw material that an eolith of this type can 

 be formed by any process, whether by design or accident. 



With regard to the criticisms of Mr. F. J. Bennett,* it is true that 

 my theory could not stand upon the results of a machine, if this were 

 in the way in which it is repi'esented by him. I have used many 

 different processes in the application of mechanical force in order to 

 investigate the chipping properties of flint, and have attempted, as 

 will be seen in the sequel, to apply this knowledge to what we see of 

 the processes of nature. 



Again, Mr. Bennett says that suppose I could perfect this method 

 so as to produce palaeolithic and neolithic implements, would this 

 prove that these implements were non-human in origin? In answer 

 to this one can only say that mere mechanical force, however it 

 may be applied, does not produce true wiplements. I do not therefore 

 think that Mr. Bennett's argument carries much weight. We cannot 

 in science go into the question of what we might believe in the event 

 of the facts which are the foundation of our theories proving to be 

 the opposite of that which they are observed to be. If such 

 circumstances were realized I think we should most of us be 

 constrained to modify our opinions. We must surely make our 

 theories accord with the facts as they are, not with imaginary facts 

 which might conceivably be but which are not.^ 



^ This article, owing to pressure of other matters, has been very long delayed, 

 for which circumstance the Editor offers his apologies to the author. 



^ J. Prestwich, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, vol. xlv, p. 270, 1889 ; vol. xlvii, 

 p. 126, 1891 ; Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxi, p. 246, 1892. 



^ S. H. Warren, Man, 1905, 103 ; 1906, 3 ; Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxxv, 

 p. 337, 1905. 



■* F. J. Bennett, Geol. Mag. 1913, p. 47. 



^ In the same number of the Geological Magazine (1913, p. 46) 

 a letter also appeared from Mr. J. Eeid Moir in which he raised certain 



