Palccolithic Man. 
of thousands of years after the alleged time of the implements/ 
And, ‘ Sir E. Ray Lankester in the course of his paper more 
than once expresses his regret that he cannot imagine what 
end the tools served; though in his “Summary of Con- 
clusions “ he suggests that they were “ not improbably used 
for dressing and smoothing the skins of animals/' This 
hardly explains their peculiar form. Similar objects have 
been found by Prof. Sollas at Selsey Bill in Sussex ; he does 
not, however; claim for them a human origin, but regards 
them as being due to natural causes, also operative in the 
Suffolk deposits . ’ 
Of these flints we are informed that 'Self-deception is a 
perfectly innocent misfortune, to which archaeologists are 
peculiarly liable. M. Marcellin Boule* who has reviewed the 
whole subject in a trenchant article, has personally examined 
the strata in the neighbourhood of Ipswich in which the rostro- 
earinate flints were found. He points out that these strata 
contained a vast mass of broken flints to which no archae- 
ological value can be attached : and that the rostro-carinates 
are simply one series of such accidental fragments. He 
further shows that the stratum is a marine deposit, so that 
(like the Eocene flint -chippers of Mons) the makers of the 
rostro-carinate tools must have been at least amphibious, if 
not actually mermen. And, as we haye already seen, even 
those who are responsible for bringing forward these objects, 
while claiming that they are “ highly specialised/’ are 
unable to. suggest any probable use which would require so 
high a degree of specialisation. After this it would be un- 
profitable to pursue the subject further.’ 
After carefully reviewing the evidence in favour of Eoliths 
being the work of man, Prof. Macalister says that ' The con- 
clusion to which we are led by this discussion is that No 
theories about Tertiary man, or precursors of man, in Europe, 
can be based on the objects called Eoliths : because 
(1) They are found only in flint -bearing regions, which indicates 
that they are produced by natural causes of some kind to which 
flint responds more readily than other stones. 
(2) There is no test whereby they can be distinguished so clearly 
as to command universal acceptance, from naturally broken 
pebbles. 
(3) There is no probability that the requirements of Tertiary man, 
or precursors of man, were so complex as to call for the use of 
tools at all. 
(4) Even if they were, the flints called eoliths would not serve any 
such purposes. 
(5) There are many alleged eoliths for which no conceivable use of 
any sort can be suggested. 
On these grounds we reject the Pliocene eoliths, and a 
fortiori those of earlier eras. It follows that if we deny the 
existence in Europe during the Tertiary times of a being 
Naturalist 
