Correspondence — R. Ashington Bullen. 427 



geologists, Sir Joseph Prestwich, who first employed his vast 

 geological learning in their defence ; but the list may be largely 

 extended, especially among the rising generation of geologists and 

 anthropologists, not omitting, of course, Professor Eupert Jones aud 

 the late acute and careful observer Dr. H. Hicks. 



Let the following extract from M. A. Rutot's letter serve as 

 a sample of the encouraging letters received since my paper has 

 been issued. He says : " En Belgique, il n'y a pas beaucoup a cora- 

 battre pour faire admettre les eolithes comme Industrie humaine. 

 Depuis plus de 15 ans, nous sommes habitues a I'industrie Me- 

 svinienne, et la connaissance de cette Industrie nous a facilite la 

 comprehension des industries plus primitives, eutel-mesvinienne 

 et Reutelienne, et aussi celle des eolithes d'Angleterre et des silex 



tertiaires Dans la question des eolithes vous pouvez 



etre certain d'etre vigoureusement soutenu en Belgique." 



["In Belguim, there is not much opposition to overcome in causing eoliths to be 

 accepted as of human workmanship. For more than 15 years we have been used 

 to the work of the Mesvinian period [I'iudustrie Mesvinienue], and our acquaintance 

 with this has rendered easier the understanding of more primitive types of work- 

 manship, e.g., Reutel -mesvinian and Reutelian, as well as that of the English 



eoliths and of flints of the Tertiary period [des silex tertiares] 



"With regard to the question of the eoliths you can be sure of vigorous support in 

 Belgium."] 



The time is approaching when there will be few or no sceptics 

 on the authenticity of eoliths, and I thank Sir Henry for having, 

 though unconsciously, ranged himself on their side. By the way, 

 "W. J. Lewis," Geol. Mag., p. 342, must be a slip for W. J. 

 Lewis Abbott, F.G.S. The late ardent collector of palajoliths was 

 Henry Lewis. R. Ashington Bullen. 



"THE EARLIEST TRACES OF MAN." 

 Sir, — In this article the author (Sir Henry Howorth, K.C.I.E., 

 F.R.S., F.G.S.) taxes the upholders of Eolithic man with an 

 insistence on their views both " in season and out of season." 

 This charge comes rather strangely from the author of the " Glacial 

 Nightmare," etc., and one is at a loss to see either the force or 

 even the meaning of it. All true workers in any science should 

 gladly welcome from others any fresh views, even if they do 

 conflict with previously accepted ones : and had these tended to 

 strengthen those of Sir Henry, they no doubt would have been 

 eagerly accepted by him, and would always have been in season 

 even if forced. 



Sir Henry admits to an obstinacy which he says has been stiffened 

 and his scepticism increased by those so-called Eoliths. Now we 

 all welcome honest scepticism, but surely obstinacy is out of place, 

 or should be, in the truly scientific mind. Obstinacy, too, is 

 generally the outcome of prejudice, and this seems to be the case 

 in this Eolithic question. 



He speaks as if the uses of all the Palajolithic implements were 

 well known — we can only guess at most of them — and expects to find 

 in the Eoliths forms parallel with them, aud hence by inference 



