CORRESPONDENCE 45 1 



for believing that human beings in the remote past possessed 

 a highly specialised instinct to dream Chellian palaeoliths. 



On p. 27 the Professor states that the first man (the italics 

 are mine) to deliberately give an edge to a flint by chipping in 

 " a particular way " was perhaps reproved by the " palaeolithic 

 argument that his predecessors found unchipped stones good 

 enough for them, and it was therefore extremely foolish to 

 attempt to supersede methods which experience had shown 

 to be so thoroughly efficient " (there would appear to be some 

 slight confusion of thought here, as if the man's associates and 

 predecessors had only used unchipped stones, which are not 

 generally classed as palaeoliths, the " arguments " put forward 

 could not well be of a palaeolithic, but rather of a proto-eolithic 

 order). On p. 30 Prof. Elliot Smith has advanced a step 

 further, and now states that " there cannot be any doubt that 

 the Chellian inventor was probably regarded by his fellow men 

 as a crazy visionary," and that he met with much opposition 

 " before he was able to convince them that his method of 

 chipping flint was a real advance upon their eolithic crudities." 

 Now, as one who, after much experience in flaking flints, has 

 succeeded in making implements of the Chellian type, I regard 

 it as in the last degree improbable that any primitive man, who, 

 on Prof. Elliot Smith's own showing, had been in the habit of 

 using only unchipped stones (one rather fails to see to what 

 sort of real use such " edgeless " specimens could be put) should 

 suddenly, without any prior knowledge of flint flaking, have 

 a remarkable inspiration, and proceed to make a Chellian 

 palaeolith. Such a view runs counter to all experience, and I 

 would as soon believe that a man could make a bicycle without 

 any prior experience in its manufacture. But if Prof. Elliot 

 Smith is himself unfamiliar with the flaking of flint, and thus, 

 in this particular matter, on a par with the primitive person 

 who had been using only unchipped stones, let him take a flint 

 nodule and a hammer-stone and see if he can make a palaeolithic 

 implement. Even though the Professor would have this 

 advantage, that he had seen a Chellian artefact while the 

 primitive person had not, I am nevertheless quite certain that 

 such an experience would modify profoundly his opinions 

 regarding the origin of the earliest pointed and ovate palaeo- 

 liths. Further it is common knowledge that there is in exist- 

 ence very good evidence to show that the Chellian specimens 



