Geology, archaeology, and ‘the raging vortex of the “eolith” controversy’

Abstract

The ‘raging vortex of the “eolith” controversy’ (Sollas, 1911) once provided a focus for vibrant debate over the extent of human antiquity. These ancient chipped stones attracted a spectrum of approaches and opinions, from geologists and archaeologists, specialists and generalists, amateurs and professionals. The case for and against the human workmanship of these stones was not a purely archaeological matter, but was described by Samuel Hazzledine Warren (1940) of Loughton, Essex, as the ‘Cinderella of Science’, falling between the two stools of archaeology and geology. Amateur geologists, such as Warren, took a prominent position in the discussions of human and natural flaking; Warren became renowned for his observations and experiments on flint fracture. On the other side of the debate, collectors such as Benjamin Harrison, a shopkeeper from Ightham, Kent, discovered both eoliths and accepted palaeoliths on the North Downs. The different perspectives, theories and rhetoric that converged upon this issue illuminate some of the tensions that lie behind the multidisciplinary subject of palaeolithic archaeology.