i 5 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



areas of hillock and dale had been densely wooded, with here and 

 there a little clearing ; and now, for nearly two centuries, plowed 

 over almost every year. What, then, should we expect, presum- 

 ing that the relics of two peoples had been left upon a tract of 

 some two hundred acres ? First, the tract was deforested, which 

 would lead to much disturbance of the surface soil ; secondly, the 

 stumps of the trees were uprooted, which would lead to a greater 

 disturbance ; and, lastly, constant plowing, exposure of a raw sur- 

 face to winds and rain, and the erosion due to the flooding of the 

 stream that drained the tract, would result inevitably in the mov- 

 ing of objects, as small as arrow-points, to considerable distances 

 from where they were left in Indian or pre-Indian times. It 

 would be strange indeed if any evidence of earlier and later oc- 

 cupancy had withstood such vicissitudes ; and yet such was the 

 case. The highest ground afforded ninety per cent of the speci- 

 mens I was able to find, of argillite ; while in the low-lying area 

 of the one-time stream's tortuous bed the argillite and jasper 

 implements were commingled, with a preponderance of jasper 

 and quartz in the ratio of seven to two. It was evident that the 

 washing down of the higher ground and partial obliteration of 

 the valley had transported the argillite and mingled it with the 

 jasper, and not generally commingled and brought to certain 

 points the equally scattered objects made of these minerals. Dur- 

 ing the summer of 1887 a very careful and intelligent observer 

 reported to me that, in a field not far from where I live, he had 

 found a considerable deposit of argillite chips, rude arrow-heads, 

 and bits of pottery ; but that there was no trace of jasper or 

 quartz, or indeed of any other mineral. As I had collected Indian 

 relics by the hundreds, in this same field, I refrained from visit- 

 ing the spot, but requested my friend to examine the locality 

 again with great care, and report to Prof. Putnam, of the Peabody 

 Museum at Cambridge, Massachusetts. What was the result ? My 

 friend reported, briefly, that the spot was one uncovered by heavy 

 rains, and formed part of the bank of a brook that crossed the 

 field (this brook, I would state, was a considerable creek in 

 1680) ; that the argillite chips, rude arrow-points, knives, scrapers, 

 and bits of pottery were found at a common level, and about fif- 

 teen inches below the present surface of the field. Prof. Putnam, 

 in acknowledging the receipt of the specimens and report as to 

 their discovery, replied that the pottery was of unusual inter- 

 est, as it was exceedingly rude and differed very greatly from any 

 that Dr. Abbott had sent from the same general neighborhood. 

 As the bits of pottery from this general neighborhood that I have 

 collected amount to hundreds of thousands, it would seem that 

 Prof. Putnam's remarks have a good deal of significance. 



As having a most important bearing upon this general question, 



