WCP1772

[1]

D^[r] A. R. Wallace

D^r Sir

So sorry my hastily written letter gave you so much trouble.

I happened to see notice of your birthday and write a spur of the moment letter.

The Mill modelled flints of M. Boule¹ sometimes show a slight suggestiveness of Eolithic work but yet there is a great difference to the trained eye.

On the publication of his paper I visited every brickyard in this neighbourhood. But could find none to tally.

But when one looks at the huge hammers[?] and considers the speed and time it is a puzzle how any flint escapes.

Today on receipt of your letter I determined to go to a distant whiting manufactory where [,] as the chalk is used [,] the contained flints which escape notice are in Keeping with M. Boule’s plan of observation.

The Brickyards before mentioned grind up loam containing drift flints, and are more tough & much more difficult to chip.

I spent 1 ½ hours examining two large heaps of waste flints, a few are rough flaked — one or two even show bulbs — but different to man struck flakes. [2] I forward some of my finds.

In a few instances I tried my hand at Eolithic and Palaeolithic work.

I pride myself on being a forger — not to deceive but in self defence.²

[3] When <mail?> containing M. Jaltin’s paper on Boule's flints was delivered to me by late post on a Saturday night [,] I was too busy to read and took with me to bed to read on Sunday morning. I knew nothing of the find apparently ruling out my life work.

My wife who has been bedridden for 2 ½ years raised me at 2.15 am.

I then read the paper & rose to pen my thoughts to a fellow worker — not disturbed as I felt I [3 words illeg.] and my "lightening like" pen budded[?] into rhyme

My friend to whom I sent got it printed without my knowledge, but I deemed it prudent not to put into circulation until [several words illeg.] the word. But am prompted to forward copy.

It may amuse.³

P. Roy <Lawaste?> at the time of the "great find" wrote me to forward specimens[?] of his. He replied.

"I have not the slightest doubt as to your human[?] [several words illeg.] of his immense increase by God[?] to Man’s Antiquity"

Lord <Curberry?> wrote last week said [4]

"There can be no doubt that many of your specimens are worked and are very interesting from [5 words illeg.]. But it seems to me they [illeg.] under tools of the Palaeolithic Age."

When we find Pal[aeolithic]s in Pliocene or Miocene then I may find way <to call> Early Pal[aeolithic]s but my seven years persistent work above 700 CB. And pits day in the [2 words illeg.] were[?] only Eo[lithic]s. And I stick to my own opinions that they [illeg.]

I remain | yours respect[fully]

B. Harrison [signature]

PS Am glad to find Mr Western [Weslake?] is [illeg.]. He came to see me 5 years since in [4 words illeg.] found for him — but he ought to know [illeg.]

[5] Flints from [illeg.] of Messrs Martin from Chopstart[?] [illeg.] Kent bearing mill machine battering and [illeg.] chipping by B Harrison made on spot Jan 9 1906.

[Sketch of worked flint, annotated:] tool used to flake

[Sketches of 2 worked flints, annotated:] All depend on the angle. If hit at a low angle a flake is the result as in [sketch] (a) extending back[?] — then follows a series of blows almost vertical — and cuts across. These characteristic Eo[lithic] chippings seem to me almost from the mill modelled. Man did not learn in a day or a century how to vary and become a face flaker.

[6] [Sketch of work flint, annotated:] low angle work. Free chipping resulting in a Pal[aeolithic]. B.H.

[Sketch of worked flint, annotated:] Occasionally a flint will nearly match by a series of blows accidentally being repeated as in this which is nice indeed — but very rare.

[Sketch of worked flint, annotated:] Nearer approach to free flaking <mill modelled>.