CORRESPONDENCE 



To the Editor of " Science Progress " 



PROFESSOR ELLIOT SMITH'S VIEWS ON FLINT 



IMPLEMENTS 



From J. Reid Moir 



Dear Sir, — In Science Progress for October (pp. 335-336) 

 appears a short review of Prof. Elliot Smith's lately-published 

 book Primitive Man (London : Oxford University Press). 

 This Review, while giving a very excellent, general account of 

 the work under discussion, does not, however, make any refer- 

 ence to the Professor's views on flint implements. But these 

 views appear to me to be of such an unusual order, that I feel 

 it to be necessary to comment upon them. 



Prof. Elliot Smith states on p. 28 of his book that the first 

 man to produce an edge on a stone by deliberate chipping 

 probably found that he had a great difficulty in convincing his 

 associates to adopt such a procedure, and that, in all likelihood, 

 his experience " was similar to Galileo's, Watt's, and Lister's," 

 and while not disputing the soundness of this conclusion, it 

 occurs to me, since reading the Professor's views on flint 

 flaking and flint implements, that many of us modern flakers 

 of flint have similar difficulties to overcome. 



It is clear, in the first place, that Prof. Elliot Smith regards 

 the earliest Chellian palaeoliths as owing their existence to 

 " special creation " as it were, and not to any slow evolutionary 

 progress in the methods of flint flaking. And such a view 

 appears in strong contrast to the many emphatic protests which 

 the Professor registers against those who, for instance, argue 

 that races of people living upon two sides of the Pacific evolved 

 independently " a winged dragon with deer's horns." Prof. 

 Elliot Smith states (p. 34) that if this is so we must postulate 

 ' a highly specialised human instinct to dream dragons," and 

 I agree. But on the other hand I am unaware of any reasons 



45° 



