pass that throughout the world, whatever differences there may have been between the scientists as to the antiquity of man, or the locality of his original appearance; manner of his civilization; use of implements (and these differences have been almost infinite), nearly all of them have agreed upon the existence of this Palæolithic period, and that it was anterior to the Neolithic period. It is not, therefore, for me to continue in this country a discussion of matters which belong to other countries, and which have been fully investigated for years by the scientists of those countries, and been accepted as settled. If the evidence as to Palæolithic Man in America be developed, arguments made and investigations required, it will be nothing more than what was required in France. and England at the time of the original discovery; but I am not without the belief that it will be finally acknowledged to be true in our country, as it had been in other countries. A series of pertinent questions may have already suggested themselves: What is the Palæolithic Age? What are its characteristics? By what test is it to be known? Before the name Palæolithic was given to it, indeed many times since, it was called the age of chipped stone. It must not, however, be considered that every stone implement belongs to the Stone Age because it was chipped. Our own North American Indian, during all the time he has been known, even into the present century, has made-indeed, pre-historic man has always made- his stone ar

row and spear-heads by chipping. The term "palæolithic age," synonymous with chipped stone age, (to be translated as the early Stone age), is to be regarded as descriptive of a certain state of human culture, -a stage of human civilization belonging to the antiquity of man, and as its name indicates, one of the earliest, if not entirely the earliest civilization known. Some pre-historic anthropologists believe there have been earlier civilizations, but this conclusion is disputed, and has not been generally accepted by scientific investigators. In this early state of culture primitive man employed stone as the material for all his cutting implements. He He was

unac

quainted with the processes of pecking or grinding, and so, to reduce these stones to a sharp edge or point, he had recourse to chipping. This he accomplished by percussion with a hammer or punch, or a pusher of some kind, or possibly all three. With these he could knock off the large chips and flakes, and could push and press off the smaller ones. In this way he reduced his implement to a cutting edge or point. The first epoch or period of man's civilization was characterized by these implements. This epoch was called by M. de Mortillett the "chellean epoch", but by M. Reinach and others, the "alluvial period," because the implements were found in the alluvial deposits of the river valleys; while others called it the age of the mammoth.

(To be continued.)

discussion of the subject.

An examination of the literature of Archæology shows the existence of very divergent views, which ever since the discoveries of Boucher de Perthes have varied greatly. It was suggested that the Stone Age should be divided into two periods, and Sir John Lubbock christened these periods "Palæolithic" and "Neolithic", which names have been generally accepted. The tendency for years was to make further sub-divisions. The "Eolithic" and "Mesolithic" have been suggested as names for periods preceeding and succeeding the Palæolithic, "as being more suitable, in the light of recent knowledge". St. Acheul, Chelles, Moustier and Madeleine have all been suggested as names for supposed divisions of the Palæolithic period. The "Drift" and the "Caves" are also claimed to represent certain differences in the age of implements, or differences in culture. Animal remains found accompanying particular implements have been declared as typical of a given period of mechanical culture. The "KjoekThe "Kjoek kenmolddings" or "Shell heaps"; the "Dolmens"; "Lake Dwellings" and "Mounds" are all suggested as proper names by which to designate a cultural period.

The opinion of some archæologists concerning Palæolithic man appears to be that he was little removed from the apes; whereas others refer to implements possessed by him, which were recognized as "Batons-of-Command", similar to the baton of a French field marshall, as emblems of authority. Some say that during this period man only used roughly chipped stone in his

implements, and this may be said to be the common European and American view; on the other hand, it is accepted that these troglodytes at a certain period chipped stone with a delicacy that has since then never been excelled, if it has been equalled. One says, Paleolithic man made pottery; another says, he did not; yet, a third says, that the most that can be said, “is that during the age of the Mammoth, pottery was invented by one tribe of savage hunters living in Belgium, and that the knowledge of it never spread." The writer had supposed that the gradual advance of man from a very low stage was one of the accepted beliefs, as indicating gradual development and evolution; but a writer says, "In the Paleolithic period man has an artistic sentiment; in the Neolithic period, he apparently had none." These varying views and differences of opinion of the best known archæologists of the world, if properly quoted, would indicate that the investigations of European pre-historic anthropologists required "demonstration" of a different character from that which they have received. The idea that an American should suggest an opinion differing in any way from accepted European dicta is resented by some as heresy.

The opinion that there was a Palæolithic period in America has been heralded throughout the world, and for a time was accepted as accurate; and implements belonging to this period were asserted to have been found at Trenton, New Jersey; at Little Falls, Minnesota, and Washing

ton, D. C. Subsequent investigations, however, appear to show that very possibly the finds of the first two localities belonged to the talus of the river banks, and were, consequently, comparatively speaking, quite modern. The Washington quarry was almost conclusively proven to be of a character not entitling it to be called Palæolithic. There are those, however, who still persist in their original assertion that all these localities produce the true Palæolith.

Dr. C. C. Abbott has strenuously contended that Trenton was the site where implements of the Palæolithic period were found, and is sustained in his belief by Professors Wright, Haynes, and others. M. Marcellin Boule and Prof. Albert Gaudry, eminent French archæologists, have visited the Trenton locality, and M. Boule calls to mind that the controversy is almost identical with "that which occurred fifty years ago, when M. Boucher de Perthes made his now famous finds in the valley of the Somme," which are now used against Dr. Abbott. He declares the localities where Palæolithic implements are found in Europe to be very similar to Trenton in almost every respect, and attributes each to the quaternary period.

Professors W. J. McGee and W. H. Holmes, both geologists of great experience, have, after the most careful investigation, declared the Trenton finds all to belong to the "talus". Mr. Wm. Dinwiddie, Prof. Holmes' assistant, and a most careful investigator, spent six weeks in the trench running through the undisturbed gravel, which was re

cently dug for the Trenton sewer without finding a single chipped implement. The concensus of

opinion appears to be that so far as America is concerned the Palæolithic period has not been shown to have existed.

Prof. Dawkins, in the paper above referred to, "accepts the two custom-honored titles "Palæolithic" and "Neolithic"; but he calls attention to the similarity between certain chipped blades, "from the Cissbury Neolithic quarry, and the fact of their looking like Drift specimens" which "was enough to call a halt to the surface gatherer." "Prof. Dawkins showed a modern Paleolith from a North American soapstone quarry, and with it a stone tool simpler in form than the Palæolith; a 'teshoa'; together with a set of Trenton specimens, which he said should with their fellows, collected by" (naming several prominent archæologists) "be placed, until further proof be furnished, in a suspense account.”

The communication of Prof. Haynes, dissenting from the asserted pottery finds of the various caves of Europe, should not outweigh the assertions of the many authors and investigators who have unequivocally asserted that they have found pottery associated with a fauna belonging to the so-called Palæolithic period; and this is practically admitted by Reinach, as quoted by Prof. Haynes himself. These differences of opinion demonstrate to those who advocate a belief in Paleolithic Man, that a necessity exists for a revision of the subject. If M. Marcellin Boule fairly represents the foreign opinion and argument of the Palæolithic