Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T03:45:26.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VII.—Eolithic Implements at Belfast and at Bloomsbury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Extract

Mr. J. W. Knowles, M.R.I.A., of Ballymena, read a paper on what appeared to him to be flints chipped similarly to the eoliths, which he had found in the Interglacial gravels of Ireland. This gave rise to a discussion, in which five speakers in succession gave reasons, or rather expressed opinions, adverse to their artificial character; and as these seemed based on some misconceptions, and also as I was the only one who spoke for them, and was told I must be brief, and so could not fully reply to them, I do so in the present form, and I state, as far as I remember, what took place in as few words as possible.

Mr. Knowles himself took a neutral position, but suggested that, if they were implements at all, they might have been used as scrapers for scraping hæmatite.

The objections were: that these so-called eoliths were found in such extraordinary numbers that they might be the result of natural causes, and that their upholders must disprove this; that the flints in question were those of the Clay-with-Flints, a deposit due to the chemical dissolution of the Chalk-with-Flints; that, if admitted to be artificial, they could not be older than the Palæolithic implements of the high levels, as they were both found in the same deposits; that similar flints were to be found in the Boulder-clay, and, as man was post-Glacial, that was a positive refutation.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1903

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 127 note 1 Paper read before British Association, Belfast, Sept. 1902.

page 127 note 2 The new pit sunk by Mr. Harrison and myself last year at Parsonage Farm, Ash, confirms most fully those sunk in 1894. I took a careful note of the percentage of worked as compared with the unworked stones, and this varied from 4 to 9 per cent.; out of the many ‘cart-loads’ of stones got out the worked stones would not make even one barrow-load, and as a matter of fact this pit, sunk 12′ x 8′ x 5′, only yielded some 200 specimens. I understand that to the Eoliths exhibited at Blooms-bury a label is attached with these words, “Supposed to be the work of man.” Now this might lead many to assume that the PaUeoliths were undoubtedly the work of man, and yet there is no real proof of this, and the same words might apply to both Eolithic and Palæolithic implements (so-called).