found today, solitary and alone, silent witnesses of that long ago, when it was the principal weapon of the early man who used them? And if "rejects,” made at the water's edge, where are the chips resulting from their fashioning? They are not scattered broadside over the river-shore as are the implements; but we do find in spots where "rejects" were made in numbers, and know the fact because of the accummulated chips. It is easy to conceive a theory and bend the facts to it; very, very easy; but the trick is found out, sooner or later.

"But they show no sign of use" pipes some impatient kicker. Prove it; and does the spear or arrow-point show signs of use? Of over a thousand chipped jasper scrapers in the Abbott collection at the Peabody Museum, not a half-dozen show signs of use, and the same may be said of drills.

These rude implements are made of argillite, and the use of this material was continued down to the time of European contact, being less and less used after the discovery of jasper. The magnificent results of Mr. Ernest Volk's explorations, under the direction of Putnam, in the valley of the Delaware, clearly prove this, and so substantiate what I have claimed for all these years and is it not significant that some of the most finished specimens of palæolithic implements have been found in situ? By what authority do the critics say they are too rude to be effective? Is any person living so in touch with primitive man today as to assert what he could and could not have used? It is well to bear in mind that many an undoubted Indian implement, just as rude, was used by these later people. Look at the rude spade and slightly chipped but girdled pebbles that were used as club-heads.

Of course in the days of palæolithic implement-making there would be "rejects," and the critic must not attempt to prove too much, because such are found, even in undisturbed gravel. Many a pebble, too, has been chipped until suggestive of an implement, by the detaching of flakes to be used as knives, as Mercer pointed out at the Rochester meeting of the A. A. A. S., and a splinter of stone was not too elaborate an implement for supposed palæolithic man to have used.

And now, in conclusion, let us remember that the native American-the Indian-is a type distinct from all other peoples; let us not forget that their languages are all a purely home product, and that these facts show undeniably a necessarily long occupancy of this continent, shut out for centuries from all the world. If he, as a fully equipped Indian, came from another region beyond the seas, his similarity to the people of that region could be traced. As it is, he came, so far as our knowledge now extends, when man over the whole world was not racially developed as now, and so when in a comparatively primitive condition; such a condition as is suggested by the simplest of implements, whether for the chase or domestic uses. Here, in North America, this early man became a potter, invented the bow, and gradually reached that status of culture, differing in degree in different parts of the country, in which he was found by European explorers.

As a student of archæology, I submit that this occupancy of the continent commenced when there was a changing condition of the river valleys in progress; but whether that change was subsequent to the glacial epoch or during it, deponent saith not. That it was during a time when rock-transporting floods were common, I do claim. That it was when ruder than ordinary Indian implements were the common tools of the people. I do claim, for how

else could only such rude forms be associated as they have been shown to be with gravels that show no evidence of disturbance except such as forces not now in operation, effected? It is true, palæolithic and Indian objects are now associated, but they are also separate and apart. What I contend for is the sequence of events of the original use of a rude weapon or tool, the one implement of that day that was manufactured, and, as time rolled on, the production of more elaborate forms, and all that pertains, the world over, to the accepted neolithic stage of humán advancement.

MAN AND THE GLACIAL PERIOD.

[BY G. FREDERICK WRIGHT.]

[Reprint from Science.]

I acknowledge with pleasure the courtesy with which Dr. Brinton, in his review of "Man and the Glacial Period," has dealt with the question of the genuineness of the reported discoveries of implements in the glacial gravels of the United States. This, of course, was the first question to be settled. Were implements of human manufacture really found in undisturbed strata of gravel which was deposited during the glacial period? If this question is settled in the affirmative, then all glacial geology has direct bearing upon the question of archæology. If it is decided in the negative, glacial geology remains the same, but it ceases to have interest in connection with archæology. I am glad to have the issue so clearly made by Dr. Brinton, and thereby to have occasion to present more specifically my reasons for belief in the genuineness of these discoveries.

The evidence naturally begins with that at Trenton, N. J., where Dr. C. C. Abbott has been so long at work. Dr. Abbott, it is true, is not a professional geologist, but his familiarity with the gravel at Trenton, where he resides, the exceptional opportunities afforded to him for investigation, and the frequent visits of geologists, have made him an expert whose opinion is of the highest value upon the question of the undisturbed character of the gravel deposit. The gravel banks which he has examined so long and so carefully have been exposed in two ways: 1st, by the 'undermining of floods on the river side, but principally by the excavations which have been made by the railroad and by private parties in search of gravel. For years the railroads have been at work digging away the side of the banks until they had removed a great many acres of the gravel to a depth of twenty or twenty-five feet. Anyone can see that in such conditions there has been no chance for "creep" or landslides to have disturbed the stratification, for the whole area was full of gravel and there was no chance of disturbance by natural causes. Now Dr. Abbott's testimony is that up to the year 1888. Sixty of the four hundred palæolithic implements which he had found at Trenton had been found at recorded depths in the gravel. Coming down to specifications, he describes in his reports the discovery of one (see "Primitive Industry," 492) found while watching the progress of an extensive excavation in Centre Street, which was nearly seven feet below the surface, surrounded by a mass of large cobble

stones and boulders, one of the latter overlying it. Another was found at the bluff at Trenton, in a narrow gorge where the material forming the sides of the chasm had not been displaced, under a large boulder nine feet below the surface (ib. 496). Another was found in a perpendicular exposure of the bluff immediately after the detachment of a large mass of material, and in a surface that had but the day before been exposed, and had not yet begun to crumble. The specimen was twenty-one feet from the surface of the ground. In all these and numerous other cases Dr. Abbott's attention was specially directed to the question of the undisturbed character of the gravel, having been cautioned upon this point in the early part of his investigations.

Nor is he the only one who has found implements which were clearly in those undisturbed gravel deposits. Professor Shaler (Report of the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Vol. II, p. 45) found two of the implements twelve feet below the top of the bank, where he says that it was difficult for him to believe that they could have traveled down from the superficial soil, and he expresses it as his opinion, after having gone over the ground with Dr. Abbott, that the implements which Dr. Abbott had found occurred under conditions that made it "quite unquestionable that they were deposited at a depth of many feet below the soil, and are really mingled with the drift matter that forms the section before described." This is the description which I have quoted in my volume (p. 242). Professor Putnam, also, permanently found. implements in position which he decided to be certainly undisturbed gravel (see 14th Annual Report of Peabody Museum, p. 23, and Proc. Boston Society of Natural History for Jan. 19, 1880.

The question of the occurrence of these implements in undisturbed gravel was so thoroughly discussed by the scientific men in Boston who visited the region about 1880 that I had supposed there was no longer any reasonable doubt concerning the facts, and I feel sure that anyone who goes through the records of the Peabody Museum and the Boston Society of Natural History about that time will be convinced. At the same time I would say that I have been unable myself to find any implements in place, though I have frequently examined the bank. But I have not felt at liberty on that account to doubt the abundant testimony of others who have. If we are limited to believing only what we ourselves have seen, our knowledge will be unduly circumscribed; and though I might be more certain of the facts if I had seen them myself, I do not see how I could increase the confidence, in the facts, of other people who could disregard the testimony already in hand.

Passing now form the discoveries at Trenton, N. J., to those in gravels of corresponding age in Ohio, we do not come to the subject with the same amount of incredulity with which we first entered the evidence at Trenton. Dr. Metz has been for years co-operating with Professor Putnam in various investigations, and the discovery of a flint implement by him in excavating for a cistern in his own yard was such that no reasonable question can be raised as to its having been undisturbed since the deposit was made, and there can be no reasonable question that the deposit was made during the continuance of glacial conditions in the State. I have described the conditions in a report to the Archæological Society of Ohio for December, 1887. The discovery of a paleolithic implement at Mr. W. C. Mills, is an equally well-attested case. resided in close proximity to an extensive glacial

New Comerstown, Ohio, by Mr. Mills, like Dr. Abbott. terrace to which the railroad

was resorting for ballast. Many acres of gravel have been removed. During the progress of these excavations Mr. Mills repeatedly visited the pit and after a fresh excavation discovered the implement in a perpendicular face of the bank fifteen feet below the surface. The facts were recorded in his diary and the implement placed in the general collection of Indian relics which he was making. Mr. Mills was at that time engaged in business in the place, but he had been a pupil of Professor Orton in geology, and was well qualified to judge of the undisturbed character of the gravel in which this implement was found. As anyone can see by consulting the photographic illustrations on pp. 252 and 253 of my volume, the implement itself is an exact duplicate, so far as form is concerned, of one which I have in my own collection, from Amiens, France, and which came to me through Professor Asa Gray, directly from the collection of Dr. Evans in London. The New Comerstown implement was submitted to Professor Haynes of Boston and to others at a meeting of the Boston Society of Natural History, and by them pronounced to have all the essential characteristics of palæolithic age. The full report upon this is found in Tract No. 75 of the Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland.

As to Miss Babbitt's discoveries at Little Falls, Minn., I have nothing further to say than that up to the present year no serious question had been raised concerning the glacial age of the gravel in which her implements were found. But as questions have now been raised in view of recent examinations, I will not attempt to discuss the matter until the facts are more fully published. But the removal of this case from the category would not disturb confidence in the evidence connecting man with the glacial period in New Jersey and Ohio.

The statement of Dr. Brinton that a well-known government geologist had recognized the Nampa image "as a clay toy manufactured by the neighboring Pocatello Indians" is news to me, and it is due to the public that this official's knowledge of the subject should be more specifically detailed. The facts as I have brought them out by prolonged and minute inquiry do not warrant any such flippant treatment of the evidence. Professor Putnam, to whose inspection the image was subjected when it first came in my hands, at once pronounced it an antiquity of some sort, unlike anything which he knew to be in existence among the aboriginal tribes. I need not say that Professor Putnam's opinion upon a question of that sort is of the very highest value. There were upon the image patches of the anhydrous oxide of iron, which to him and other experts were indubitable evidence that it had lain for a long time in the earth. Subsequently I ascertained, while on the ground at Nampa, that the shade of color in this iron oxide upon it corresponded exactly to that which had formed upon the clay concretions which came up in large quantities from the same stratum in which the image was alleged to have been found. I have also, I think, made it evident that the burying of human relics even to the great depth of 320 feet in the Snake River Valley may not be much more surprising than the burial of the remains of man in Pompeii and Herculaneum, and that the date of this burial may not have been very many thousand years ago. The direct evidence to the fact that this little image, an inch and a half long, came up from the depth reported is about as convincing as we can have for any fact which depends for credence upon human testimony. There has been nothing with regard to the appearance of the parties suggesting fraud. Mr. Cumming, the superintendent of that division of the

Union Pacific Railroad, whose attention to the facts was called the day after the discovery, is a Harvard College graduate, of extended legal education and wide practical experience, who knew all the parties and was familiar with the circumstances, and investigated them upon the ground. Charles Francis Adams emphatically affirms that Mr. Cumming's evidence is entitled to as much consideration as the evidence of any scientific man would be. Anyone who wishes to get my detailed report of the evidence will find it in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History for Jan. 1, 1890, and Feb. 18, 1891

The discoveries of human implements under Table Mountain in California are in close analogy with this discovery at Nampa, in the Snake River Valley, and the same remarks have been made respecting them that Dr. Brinton reports concerning the Nampa image, namely, that they are modern implements at present in use among the local tribes of Indians. But no such offhand opinion as this can break the force of the evidence which has accummulated in support of their having been found in deposits which have been undisturbed since the great lava outflows which constitute what is called the Sonora Table Mountain. The evidence concerning the Calaveras skull has been exhaustively discussed by Prof. Whitney, of Harvard College, who pronounces the facts to be beyond all reasonable doubt. At the meeting of the Geological Society in Washington in January, 1891, three independent discoveries of human implements in conditions similar to those assigned to the Calaveras skull were presented. I had myself obtained information at Sonora of the discovery of a stone-mortar in the tunnel of the Empire mine of which the evidence was satisfactory beyond reasonable doubt. The discovery was made by the assistant surveyor of the county in the tunnel of a mine under Table Mountain, which was owned by his father and where work is still prosecuted. The mortar had been given away to another person, but it has since come into my hands and is preserved in the Museum of the Western Reserve Historical Society of Cleveland.

At the same meeting Mr. Geo. H. Becker, of the U. S. Geological Survey, presented a similar mortar found under Table Mountain some years before by Mr. Neale, a mining engineer. Mr. Neale signed an affidavit detailing the particulars, and his remembrance of the situation was so minute that there could be no question of the undisturbed character of the deposits. Mr. Becker well remarks that Mr. Neale,s judgment as mining-engineer concerning the undisturbed character of the deposit is the highest evidence that can possibly be obtained, for that is a point to which the miner's attention is constantly directed, on account of the danger attending the opening of any old excavation.:

The third new evidence offered was that of Mr. Clarence King, who had just presented to the Smithsonian Institution a fragment of a pestle which he had taken with his own hands, in the vicinity of the two previous places mentioned, from the undisturbed gravel beds underlying Table Mountain. I need not say that Mr. Becker and Mr. King are two geologists of the very highest standing in the country, and that they both have unusual familiarity with the phenomena of that region, and they both, together with Prof. Marsh, Prof. Putnam, and W. H. Dall, express their unqualified belief in reference to the Calaveras skull that it was found in place in the gravel beneath this same

stream of lava.