OSBORX. REVIEW OF THE PLEISTOCEXE 



265 



Eolithic Theory.^^ — Following Desnoyer's discovery in 1863 was that 

 of L'Abbe Bourgeois in 18.67, who found in the Miocene of Thenay, 

 Loire-et-Cher, flints supposed to be the work of man. In 1877 Eames 

 brought to notice flints from the Upper Miocene volcanic ash beds of 

 Puy-Cournay, Cantal, in central France. In 1892 Brown proposed the 

 term "eoliths" to distinguish these supposedly primitive artifacts from 

 the ^^palseoliths" of Lubbock (Fig. 13). The Belgian geologist Rutot 

 has devoted many years to the development of the eolithic theory and has 



Pig. 13.— Eolithic, Palwolithic and NeoUihic implements 



A Eolith, Mafflean Epoch, Belgium. B Palseolith, Chellean Epoch, Milton Street, 

 Kent, England. G Neolith, Upper Robenhausian Epoch, Gille Leie, Denmark. Photo- 

 graph by MacCurdy, 1909. 



attempted to prove that like the Palasolithic the Eolithic period is capable 

 of subdivision into a number of stages or industries which are geolog- 

 ically demonstrable. 



The supposed eolithic flints are very rough, but rude as they are they 

 generally exhibit one part shaped as if to be grasped by the hand while 

 the other part appears to be edged or pointed for cutting. ^^ It is gener- 



*3 MacCurdy, G. G. : "The Eolithic Problem. Evidences of a Rude Industry Antedat- 

 ing the Paleolithic." Amer. Anthropol., N. S., Vol. VII, No. 3, pp. 425-479. July-Sept, 

 1905. 



*^ Penck, a. : "The Antiquity of Man." Lecture before Washington Acad, of Sci., 

 Feb. 1, 1909. Abstr. Science. N. S., Vol. xxix, No. 739, pp. 359-360. Feb. 26, 1909. 



