552 S. H. Warren — The Eolithic Controversy. 



We have still so much to learn that it is perhaps rash to be too 

 definite ; at the same time I have no hesitation in expressing my 

 opinion. I believe that when the subject of flint chipping comes to 

 be understood upon a scientific basis it will no more be possible 

 to regard the eolithic groups (as a whole) ' as human implements than 

 it is possible, now that anatomy is understood, to regard the fossil 

 salamander of (Eningen as being veritably the skeleton of a human 

 being who witnessed the deluge. 



In conclusion, I would like to express my indebtedness to the 

 articles which have been published on the sceptical side by Mr. F. N. 

 Haward and Mr. W. H. Sutcliffe, to the evidences brought before the 

 British Association by Professor Sollas, and to other papers published 

 in this country and upon the Continent.^ 



The figure shows a piece of tabular flint with two notches crushed out of its 

 edge by pressure against two pebbles, as illustrated by the photograph. 

 The half -circle by the side has a diameter of 1 inch, and is placed there 

 to show the scale. 



^ The question of the selection of, say, 2 per cent (as has been suggested) 

 of the eoliths as being more probably human implements than the remainder 

 is a very difficult one. There is much to be said in its favour, but, on the 

 other hand, the members of the eolithic groups have so much essentially in 

 common that to my mind it seems more logical to consider that they must 

 stand or fall together. 



^ F. N. Haward, Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia, vol. i, p. 185, 1912 ; vol. i, 

 p. 347, 1913 ; W. H. Sutcliffe, Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc, 

 vol. Ivii, No. 7, 1913; M. Boule, L'Anthropologie, vol. xvi, p. 266, 1905; 

 W. G. Smith, Ma7t, 1907, 99 ; 1908, 53 ; H. Breuil, L'Anthropologie, 

 vol. xxi, p. 385, 1910 ; P. Sarasin, Verhand. Naturfor. Ges. Basel, vol. xxii, 

 p. 1, 1911. Further references may be found in these papers. 



