Correspondence — J. Reid Moir. 477 



M. Boule in this paper refers especially to the flaked flints found 

 beneath the Red Crag of Suffolk, and also to the human skeleton 

 found by me in Messrs. Bolton & Laughlin's sand-pit at Ipswich 

 in 1911, and in criticizing these discoveries has certainly lived up 

 to the view expressed on p. 38 of his paper that it is better to be 

 too severe in criticisms of such matters than not to be severe 

 enough. In this note I propose to emulate M. Boule's 'severity', 

 and to speak out plainly as he has done. But I do not intend to 

 make any reply to the threadbare and foolish arguments he uses in 

 support of his case, arguments which I have replied to a great number 

 of times, and which I do not intend to discuss any further. I want, 

 however, to say something about M. Boule's and his colleague 

 M. Breuil's attitude towards the discoveries I have mentioned, and 

 their capabilities of judging whether a flint has been flaked by nature 

 or by man. Regarding the first, I am of the opinion that both 

 M. Boule and M. Breuil are hopelessly biassed in favour of the view 

 that the human race is not more ancient than the early Chellean 

 period, and I hold this view for the following reasons. It has come 

 to my knowledge from an unimpeachable source that many weeks 

 before either of these gentlemen visited Suffolk or had seen a single 

 one of my specimens, they had expressed their disbelief in the value 

 of my discoveries. I also know, from personal observation, that 

 when they were here they showed very plainly and unmistakably 

 that they did not intend to examine carefully and scientifically the 

 sub-Crag flints or the beds from which they were derived, nor did 

 they spend more than a few minutes in examining the section in the 

 pit where the Ipswich skeleton was found. Their attitude to all 

 the things they saw was careless and almost petulant, and in my 

 opinion quite unscientific. Regarding the capabilities of MM. Boule 

 and Breuil of judging whether a flint has been flaked by nature or 

 by man, I am of the opinion that neither of them is capable of such 

 judgment, and I hold this opinion for the following reasons. After 

 the sub-Crag flints had been seen and rejected as humanly fashioned 

 I showed M. Boule a series of the Middle Glacial specimens, and 

 without telling him from what stratum they were derived asked 

 whether he regarded them as 'human' or 'natural'. He at once 

 said he thought they were definite implements of man. I then told 

 him where they were found, and immediately he disputed the 

 correctness of the geological interpretation. When, however, I showed 

 him that this interpretation was undoubtedly correct, he said that the 

 flints could not be humanly fashioned. I notice at p. 13 of M. Boule's 

 paper he describes these Middle Glacial specimens as " formes 

 troublantes ", and I can quite understand why he so regards them. 

 On the morning of the second day of the visit of MM. Boule and 

 Breuil I showed the latter a flint scraper found beneath the shelly 

 Red Crag, which in form was identical with the scrapers which are 

 found in nearly every period of the Stone Age, and asked him whether 

 he considered it to be humanly fashioned or flaked by natural forces. 

 He replied that it was his opinion that nature was responsible for the 

 flaking. I then asked him to tell me what force he considered had flaked 

 the flint, and he simply shrugged his shoulders and said he did not 



