130 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXV. No. 630 



are equal to the same thing are equal to 

 each other. By substituting, therefore, one 

 arrives at the identity between stream- 

 made and machine-made eoliths, on the one 

 hand, v and recognized artifacts, on the 

 other. This does not prove the non-exist- 

 ence of true eoliths any more than it does 

 that of the paleolithic or neolithic artifacts. 



If streams at flood ever produced eoliths 

 it is more than probable that they may 

 still be doing so. While keeping one eye 

 on the chalk-mill at Mantes might it not be 

 well to keep the other on the Seine that 

 flows near by? A few Seine-made eoliths 

 would certainly be more convincing than 

 those turned out at the factory. 



It has not been my good fortune to see 

 one of those cement factories at work. It 

 is evident from the available literature on 

 the subject that considerable prejudice Las 

 entered into the controversy. MM. Laville, 

 Boule, et al., were evidently seeking for 

 what they claim to have found at Mantes. 

 On the other hand, it was extremely un- 

 fortunate that certain believers in an eo- 

 lithic industry were refused admittance 

 into the Mantes establishment. A selected 

 series, however, from Mantes, which was 

 sent in 1905 to the Salzburg meeting of 

 the German Anthropological Association 

 by Herr Obermaier, was later .placed at the 

 disposal of Professor Verworn and Dr. 

 Hahne. Verworn compared them with his 

 collection of eoliths from Cantal, while 

 Hahne compared the Mantes specimens 

 with a similar series from a chalk-mill on 

 the Island of Riigen, and the eoliths from 

 Belgium sent to him by Rutot. 



Dr. Rutot has sought to match his superb 

 collection of eoliths in the Royal Museum 

 of Natural History, Brussels, with speci- 

 mens from the chalk-mills of Belgium, but 

 in vain. Professor Verworn and Dr. 

 Haline have been no more successful in 

 their comparative studies. All three agree 

 in their general conclusions as to the rad- 



ical differences between the true and the 

 false eoliths; also that the action of the 

 mill is hardly comparable with that of the 

 natural streams of the regions in question 

 except in one particular, viz., both tend in 

 time to make pebbles of the flints that are 

 offered to them. 



According to Professor Verworn, ^^ a 

 fundamental difference exists between the 

 eoliths he found at Puy-Boudieu and the 

 pseudo-eoliths from Mantes. The corners 

 and edges of the latter are worn, while 

 those of the Cantal eoliths are not. It has 

 been suggested that the chipping on the 

 specimens from Puy-Boudieu may be due 

 to pressure of the overlying beds. Such a 

 result might be possible where unstable 

 beds contained a suiEcient quantity of flint 

 nodules and chips pressing against each 

 other. At Puy-Boudieu, however, the 

 chopped flints are not resting against each 

 other. They are separated by masses of 

 tufa, loam and sand. 



After a careful comparison of machine- 

 made eoliths from both Mantes and Sassnitz 

 with the Mafflean and Mesvinian industry 

 from Belgium, Dr. Hahne V* conclusions 

 are as follows: (1) The chalk-mill flints 

 are all scratched and otherwise marked by 

 the iron teeth of the mill. (2) The sides 

 of all the larger pieces are bedecked with 

 scars from blows that were not properly 

 placed to remove a flake. (3) Almost every 

 piece shows more or less of the original 

 chalky crust of the nodule. (4) Anything 

 like a systematic chipping of an edge or 

 margin is never found except for very 

 short stretches where one would expect it 

 to be carried along the entire margin. This 

 is quite different from the long retouched 

 margins of most eoliths. (5) The same 

 edge is often rechipped first on one side 

 and then on the other absolutely without 



" Op. cit., p. 620. 



" ' Uber die Beziehungen der Kreidemtihlen zur 

 Eolithenfrage,' Zeit, fur Ethnol, 1905, S. 1024. 



