;S^. H. Warren — Tlte Eolithic Controversy. 549 



But coming again to more general points, it is argued that the 

 palseoliths cannot have been the first human implements, but that 

 they must on a j^riori grounds have been preceded by an ' eolithic ' 

 stage of culture. It is true that everything must have its beginning, 

 but at the same time we do not find in tlie development of human 

 arts and crafts that any method becomes dominant until it has reached 

 a certain degree of excellence and practical usefulness. 



The most primitive implement of stone is the simple pebble, used 

 for purposes of hammering or crusliing ' In its simplest form it is not 

 an artifact, and cannot always be determined as a human implement. 

 It goes right through the human period, and is still occasionally used 

 by ourselves at the present day. 



Apart from this, the most primitive implements among modern 

 savages are not implements of stone, but those made of wood, thorns, 

 the teeth and claws of wild animals, shells, and the like. We may 

 call this culture the affe of wood. There are races living to-day who 

 have scarcely reached the stone age — or, as is perhaps more probable, 

 who have gone back by a process of atavism to a condition which is 

 practically a pre-stone-age culture.^ 



The age of metal did not supersede the age of stone until the working 

 of metal had sufficiently advanced to make its general use advantageous. 

 And that, I think, is the general order of things; it seems inevitable 

 that it should be. Why is it theoretically necessary for the passage 

 from the age of wood to the age of stone to have been an exception ? 



One of the first needs of mankind in all ages is a cutting instrument.^ 

 We do not find an important stage in human cultural evolution 

 represented by vast numbers of abortive attempts at making cutting 

 instruments of metal. Yet it is confidently alleged that the earliest 

 phase of the stone age ought {a priori) to be represented by 

 instruments of stone that will not cut, and the eoliths are held to 

 fulfil this expectation. I do not understand why the earliest group 

 of stone implements should be incapable of cutting.^ 



1 am not forgetting that large numbers of the eoliths — supposing 

 them to be human implements — belong to the scraping group of 

 cutting tools. But even scrapers require to have a definite edge, 

 which is often not very apparent on the eoliths. 



^ [It may not be without interest to record that the late Dr. Richardson 

 (F.R.S. Tas.) informed me (many years ago) that on the old beaches along the 

 coasts of Tasmania he had found very ancient native ' middens ' marked by 

 heaps of bivalve shells which had been opened with sharp-edged stones ; in 

 other spots the middens consisted of broken univalves {Tritons, etc.) whose 

 whorls had been crushed with round stones. In each case the appropriate 

 implement was found at that locality with the shells of the particular molluscs 

 upon which the natives had subsisted. ^ — Ed. Geol. Mag.] 



This is a very interesting point. Taking Dr. Richardson's conclusion with 

 regard to the " sharp-edged stones " as correct, they come within the group of 

 cutting instruments. The round stones belong to the primitive pebble-hammers. 

 The eoliths cannot claim to belong to either group. — S. H. W. 



2 W. J. McGee, "On the Seri Indians": Bull. Bureau Amer. Ethnol., 

 17, pt. i, 1896. 



^ See also G. & A. de Mortillet, Le Pri'liistorique Origine et Antiquiti de 

 Vhomnie, 3rd ed., p. 143, 1900. The argument here is that the Chell^en 

 instrument is essentially primitive. 



