Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

Patterson warned against the type of purely speculative interpretation often encountered in the writings of critics of anomalous lithic industries. An example would be Warren’s suggestion that grounding icebergs were responsible for Moir’s specimens. Patterson stated: “Even the personal opinion of a lithic expert is of little value if explicit technological reasons cannot be given to explain an opinion, either positive or negative. . . . The comments of [C. V.] Haynes on the Calico site lithic collection are a good example of subjective comments, without consideration of specific lithic attributes that could distinguish man-made manufacturing patterns. A list is given of ways that stone could fracture from natural causes, and then an opinion is given that the Calico lithics are the result of natural fractures, without presenting any detailed specific qualitative and quantitative studies of the attributes of the lithic materials in question. This type of subjective discussion should be avoided, as it unduly influences general opinion without any real basis” (L. Patterson 1983, p. 298).

In light of the views presented by Bryan, Carter, and Patterson, it is clear that wholesale rejection of the Eolithic and other early stone tool industries by application of the Barnes criterion is unwarranted. As a rule, the proponents of the anomalously old industries appear to have reached their conclusions by sounder analytic techniques than the opponents of such industries, whose objections mainly take the form of suggesting, with inadequate supporting evidence, various ways in which natural forces, principally pressure flaking, could have produced the objects in question.

So what are we left with? At this stage in our review of ancient stone implements, we find that we have some very credible reports, by reputable scientists, of stone tool industries dating well back into the Tertiary epoch. We should, however, point out that our investigations, although thorough, are by no means complete. In the course of our research, which we can only characterize as a preliminary survey, we have had to leave many leads unpursued (Eolithic industries from Tunisia, Egypt, etc.). We fully expect that future editions of this book will contain increasing numbers of authenticated examples of very ancient stone tool industries, as they come to our attention either in the course of our own investigations or through submissions by others.

3.5 Cement Mill Eoliths?

From the late 1800s to the present, some scientists have challenged the human manufacture of eoliths and other crude stone implements, claiming that flakes of flint just like them are produced by machinery at cement factories. Alfred Russell Wallace wrote to Benjamin Harrison on June 8, 1907: “I suppose you know that a considerable number of eoliths have been found recently on the high gravels of the New Forest, near Fordingbridge, by Mr. Westlake and others. But the most important thing recently is the attack on the human origin of eoliths by the production during some process of crushing flints on the Continent of forms which are alleged to be identical with those of the eoliths in every detail. Opinion seems to be strongly divided, but I have seen no really careful judgement after close comparison. Have you seen them? Can you not get a set of them in exchange for yours, and give us a careful comparison? That would be worth while” (E. Harrison 1928, p. 278).

“Harrison was alive to the challenge to the eoliths arising out of the alleged resemblances of battered mill-made specimens of rude implements,” observed Sir Edward R. Harrison (1928, p. 278). “He visited several brickyards and cement works in order to examine the stones that had been struck by the revolving rakes of the machines, and came away convinced that the chipped stones so produced were distinguishable from the typical Kent eoliths.”

In one of his notebook entries for the year 1907, Harrison wrote of a visit to a cement mill: “Had over an hour’s search on the waste heap, but could find no ‘eoliths.’ Two bulbed flakes found. One or two stones, having been accidentally rehit near the same place, bore some resemblance to poor eoliths, but still with a difference” (E. Harrison 1928, p. 275).