EVIDENCES OF PREHISTORIC MAN IN WEST KENT. 333
This suggestion is strengthened by the occurrence of Eolithic and
Palaeolithic types in close association. This association of types
has already served as evidence against the authenticity and not
the antiquity of Eoliths.
Professor Boyd-Dawkins (Journal of Anthropological Institute,
April, 1903), in reviewing the Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone
Age, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum last year,
maintained that because the types are found in association they
are necessarily of the same period, the conclusion naturally
arrived at being that Eoliths do not represent any outlay of man's
handiwork. It is possible to view the association of type from a
different standpoint. The passage referred to is as follows ;—
"The question therefore as to whether the Eoliths are natural
flints used by man or artificially made tools, is of no special
importance, because Palaeolithic man, the maker of advanced
implements, was then in the land and would certainly have used
primitive types if they suited his purpose." Now the ground on
which the objection is placed is that in the Prestwick Collection
there are three specimens labelled "Palaeolithic implements
found with plateau gravel specimens, Shoreham, Kent." It is
possible, however, that the occurrence of the two types in
association neither detracts from the age of the Eoliths nor
increases the antiquity assignable to the Palaeoliths as both
may have been under the influence of river action, with the
difference that the Eoliths constituted a part of the area to be
denuded, whilst the Palaeoliths were made during and after the
break-up of the Eolithic gravels. It is difficult to decide the
earliest date of any of the constituent materials of a river gravel,
as the deposit is collected from various areas of widely divergent
ages ; it seems more reasonable to look on the deposit as
illustrating only the latest period to which a river carried its
denuding action.
If plateau evidence is required, then we must go to the
plateau gravels, and when Eoliths and Palaeoliths are there
found in close association in the plateau drift, it may perhaps be
necessary to revise the claim for the greater antiquity of Eoliths.
I do not think it requires one of the greater prophets to foretell
the unlikelihood of such a revision.
If the claim for contemporaneity of type should be sub-
stantiated, it will still be necessary to explain away the evidence