part 3] BENEATH THE THATTET SA>~D. 251 



Mr. H. Bl t ry thought it unfortunate that such a discussion 

 should have heen raised without a fair representation of both sides 

 of the case among the exhibits. The Author and Mr. Haward 

 had brought forward the best specimens that they could find in 

 support of their case ; but for comparison they only produced some 

 half-dozen very inferior Kentish Eoliths, and no sub-Crag imple- 

 ments at all. It was a mistake to suppose that believers ir* 

 Pliocene Man had ignored these pressure-naked flints from the 

 Eocene beds ; on the contrary, the differences in detail which they 

 observed between the two categories formed an essential factor in 

 their argument. 



Mr. Walter Johxson, while admitting that the undoubtedly 

 natural specimens from Grays disposed of the claims of a vast 

 number of the Plateau flints, urged that the modes of origin were 

 "hot alike. The Grays specimens had presumably been formed by 

 slight differential movements and accompanying pressure, but in 

 the case of the Kentish flints there had been much transportation, 

 with rolling and concussion. Yet these Kentish Hints still exhi- 

 bited characteristic outlines and chipping. Assuming that they 

 had ever been in the condition of the Grays flints, were we to 

 suppose that, after having lost their characteristics by abrasion, as 

 would be the case, the}" would have the Eolithic form and mark- 

 ings produced afresh ? That Nature formed 'Eoliths' was evident ; 

 that Man also fashioned crude implements was equally plain from 

 observation. If, from a large suite of Plateau flints, a fair propor- 

 tion of Eoliths could be selected, which, by common consent, 

 showed artificial agency, then the Eoliths must stand, whether 

 called ' pre-Pakeoliths,' or by any other name. 



Mr. A. S. Kennard congratulated the Author on an important 

 discovery, and considered that the paper strongly supported the 

 claim for the human origin of the Kentish Eoliths. He agreed 

 with the Author that it was unfair to decide from a few examples, 

 and that the proper test was the whole group. Judged by this 

 standard, neither of the series shown resembled the Kentish Eoliths,, 

 since the more numerous and characteristic specimens were quite- 

 unknown on the Plateau. 



Mr. A. L. Leach agreed with the Author in thinking that the 

 peculiarly notched and chipped edges produced on these sub- 

 Eocene flints by unquestionable natural pressures were indistin- 

 guishable from the notched and chipped edges of the flints commonly 

 termed 'Eoliths. 1 Moreover, certain features: for instance, 

 strongly-marked bulb-scars or negative bulbs, which, when seen on 

 selected specimens from the sub-Crag detritus-bed of East Anglia,. 

 appeared very suggestive of human work, were also present on these 

 pressure-chipped flints. He was, therefore, of opinion that the 

 Author's specimens, obtained from a definite sub-Eocene horizon 

 where none but purely natural forces could have acted, threw much 

 light on the probable mode of origin of ' Eoliths ' and of other 

 peculiarly chipped flints which were claimed to be products of 

 pre-Paheolithic human handiwork. 



