434 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1958 
were mainly produced by the powerful friction of one stone against 
another which occurs in soil creep, particularly under subglacial 
conditions. 
While it is reasonable enough to consider the possibility of tool- 
using primates having existed during Pliocene times, and even during 
the Miocene period, there are insuperable difficulties in the way of 
recognizing the particular pieces of stone or bone that may have 
been picked up and used. The earliest attempts at making tools 
from pieces of stone must have been all but indistinguishable from 
the accidents of nature (and we have already seen how “human” 
these can appear). Naturally fractured stones probably served as 
the first tools. Some Australian aborigines at the present day 
fashion wooden utensils with naturally shaped pieces of stone selected 
by virtue of their sharp cutting edges. As one French prehistorian 
expressed the problem of eoliths: “Man made one, God made ten 
thousand—God help the Man who tries to see the one in the ten 
thousand.” 
During the present century large numbers of flaked flints, including 
some strongly suggestive of intelligent design, have been found in 
the Stone Bed underlying the Norwich and Weybourne Crags in Nor- 
folk and in the Bone Bed below the Red Crag in Suffolk. These 
flints show a number of features not found in the general run of Ter- 
tiary eoliths; and largely, I believe, because they date from the very 
interval of time when, according to many lines of evidence, tool making 
probably began, they have been widely accepted as human artifacts 
despite the relentless opposition of scientists who have specialized in 
the study of flint fractures, such as Hazzledine Warren and the late 
Prof. A. S. Barnes. If one confines attention to the beautiful rostro- 
carinates, corelike forms, scraperlike flakes, and so on, laid out for ex- 
hibition in the Norwich Castle Museum and the Ipswich Museum, it is 
difficult to disbelieve in their human origin. Yet, collecting for oneself 
in the Sub-Crag Stone Bed, for example, one is bewildered by the high 
percentage of the component flints that have been bruised and chipped, 
the majority obviously in a random fashion. Now and again the 
flakes have been removed first from one side and then from another 
side in a way suggestive of design. By keeping only the best of the 
latter kind one can build a collection that is convincingly like a 
crude human industry; yet seen as part of a vast series of flakings, 
with gradation from obviously natural to seeming]ly artificial, the Sub- 
Crag “implements” are less convincing than when studied in isolation. 
Nevertheless, the late Reid Moir and others made a good case for 
accepting some of the assemblages of flakings in and below the Crag 
as the work of “pre-Palaeolithic Man,” until belief in them was 
shaken by Barnes’s demonstration that on statistical analysis the Crag 
