77 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Ohio and Indiana. The utter rejection and slighting of testimony 

 because it does not come from experts is, in our humble judg- 

 ment, a serious blunder. It is easy, by the assumption of supe- 

 rior knowledge and " later information," to discredit able, honest, 

 and competent work by men who are termed, not with respect, 

 " amateurs." We have already shown what science owes to ama- 

 teurs. Let us take the further liberty — and we do so with the pro- 

 f oundest respect for the distinguished professionals concerned — of 

 reminding them of the experience of their European brethren in 

 a similar case. Fifty years have gone by since M. Boucher de 

 Perthes found in the gravel near Amiens implements of human 

 manufacture. His discoveries were published and received by the 

 scientific world with complacent contempt and neglect, not to say 

 opposition. " The gravels were modern," " the beds had been dis- 

 turbed," " the implements had been recently inserted," " the whole 

 story was fictitious," * and its author a " cheat," a " shyster," and 

 a " charlatan," as nearly as French politeness could match these 

 terms. But time rolled on, the evidence could not be shaken by 

 neglect and contradiction ; and when at last a committee was sent 

 to the spot they returned unanimously convinced that the ama- 

 teur was right, and that all the previously held theories of geolo- 

 gists on the antiquity of man must be reconstructed through the 

 finding of these rude implements by M. Boucher de Perthes. His- 

 tory repeats itself, and we respectfully urge on Prof. Wright's 

 critics the careful study of the little incident above quoted, and 

 especially the momentous moral which it implies and which we 

 leave them to draw. 



The caution of our author is shown in his discussion on the 

 most doubtful case, that from Claymont, Delaware, where an im- 

 plement was reported by Mr. Cresson from the Philadelphia gravel 

 underlying the Trenton gravel, and consequently of greater age. 

 We need not remind our readers that the evidence demanded in 

 support of every discovery of human relics increases rapidly with 

 the implied distance of their date. This is just, and the language 

 employed concerning the Claymont tool could scarcely have been 

 more guarded. Prof. Wright says (page 258), "As there is so 

 much chance for error and so little opportunity to verify the con- 

 clusion, we may well wait before building a theory upon it." His 

 opponents could hardly desire more caution. 



We may, however, linger awhile over the next instance — the 

 well-known relics from Table Mountain, California. These were 

 first announced by Prof. Whitney, in his report on the geological 

 survey of that State, and others have since come to light. We 

 can not here give details, but must content ourselves with saying 



* See American Anthropologist, January, 1893. 



