2l6 EOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS FROM WALDERSLADE.
17. A. Rutot. "Note sur la Decouverte d' importants Gisements de Silex
tailles dans les collines de la Flandre Occidentale."
Bull. Soc. d'Anthropologic de Bruxelles, xviii. (1900).
18. R. D. Darbishire, "Implements from the Chalk Plateau."
Proc. Manchester Literary and Philosophical Soc. xlvi. (1901).
19. Annual Report of Wellington College Natural Science Society (1901).
20. A. Rutot, "Sur une Preuve de l'existence de l'Homme sur la Crete de
l'Artois avant la Fin du Pliocene."
Bull. Soc. Beige de Geologic (1901).
21. F. J. Bennett, "Antiquity of Man."
Chatham and Rochester Observer (1901).
22. A. Rutot, "Sur la distribution des Industries Palaeolithiques dans les
Couches Quarternaires de la Belgique."
Comptes-Rendus du Congris International d'Anthropologic et
d'Archeologie prehistoriques XIle Session. Paris (1900).
23. E. R. Harrison, "Eolithic Flint Implements."
South Eastern Naturalist (1902).
24. A. Rutot, "Defense des Eolithes."
Bull. Soc. d'Anthropologic de Bruxelles. xx. (1902).
NOTE.
At the reading of the above paper at the meeting on March 8th, 1902,
Mr. A. S. Kennard made some remarks which are embodied in the following
note, to which the author has replied. These observations will most con-
veniently be given here :—
" It is of the utmost importance that the attention of Essex geologists
should be called to these Eolithic implements since without a doubt they will
be found in the county if proper search is made. Examples which may be
of this age have been found in the Thames gravels at Grays and Ilford but
what is wanted is to find these implements in the higher and older gravels.
Whether it is right to assign such names as 'borers,' 'spokeshaves,'
'scrapers,' &c., to these implements may well be questioned. We know
nothing of the customs of these primitive folk and our only knowledge of the
existence of these primitive folk is derived from these flints. It is unsafe
even to compare them with existing savages since all or nearly all of these
have reached a higher scale in development than that which the Eolithic folk
had attained. Even with the later Palaeolithic implements we know next to
nothing of their probable uses and this remark applies to many Neolithic tools
also. The only ground on which the use of such names can be defended is
the necessity of using terms which will be understood by all students of
anthropology, hence their employment should refer to shape only and not to
probable use.
" These primitive implements are known from Belgium, France, Egypt
and South Africa, but it does not follow that they are all of the same age.
Each district must be worked in detail before we can speak definitely.
A. S. Kennard."