Paleolithic Man. 
99 
capable of making and using even such feeble attempts at 
flint tools as the average eolith, we must still more strongly 
-deny the existence of a manufacturer of the more complicated 
rostro -car inates . ' 
This conclusion reminds us of the statement made by Prof. 
Sollas, ‘ Eolithic scrapers that will not scrape, borers that will 
not bore, and planes that will jiot planed 
The Dewlish Elephant trap, once thought to be evidence 
of Tertiary man, but now known to be a perfectly natural 
feature, is disposed of quickly. 
The alleged ancient carving of a human face on a shell (see 
Naturalist 1914, p. 414 ) is thus dismissed ‘ Scarcely worth 
so much as a mention, except as an example of Archaeology 
pour rire, is the human face depicted upon a scallop-shell 
(. Pectunculus glycimeris) , alleged to have been found in the 
Red Crag of Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, and supposed to 
prove that Pliocene man not only existed, but was. able to 
make portraits of himself and his friends. Not the least 
amusing part of the story are the circumstances of the discovery 
of this object, by a young man who was an enthusiastic atheist, 
and who rejoiced in adding one more to the “ mistakes of 
Moses.” But later, becoming converted, he wished to prove 
the honesty of his new convictions by destroying this anti- 
religious piece of evidence. He was prevented from doing so, 
however, by a well-known collector, who secured the prize. 
A mere glance at the object is enough to condemn it as a 
preposterous forgery. An admirable illustration of this 
precious work of art, accompanied by an unduly solemn report, 
will be found in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of 
East Anglia, Vol. I. (1913), plate LXXIII. p. 323 ff/ 
After very careful consideration the author considers that 
* no success had crowned the search for Tertiary man in Europe, 
or even for Tertiary precursors of man. No bones of such a 
being have come to light, and while eoliths can be reasonably 
explained as natural products, they are inexplicable if they 
are to be regarded as artificial/ 
And now Prof. Klaatsch comes on the scene, and tells us 
that “ One can without difficulty classify the majority of 
Mesvinian implements into a number of categories, hammer- 
stones, scrapers, hollow -s'crapers, borers, knives, etc. Rutot 
has in his numerous works delineated the full variety of these 
instruments in sharp and characteristic line drawings, which 
are far better than the wash-illustrations of English authors.” 
So as not to fall under this condemnation, we borrow Prof. 
Klaatsch’s own photograph of Mesvinian eoliths collected by 
himself. Beside it, we set a similar plate of photographs of 
chips of flint collected at random from a garden walk. Doubt- 
less someone will say that these, too, are implements : I 
1922 Mar. 1 
