PROF. G. F. WRIGHT AND HIS CRITICS. 771 



that they "were found in the auriferous gravel underlying a sheet 

 of lava which flowed over them and has since been glaciated and 

 cut through by the stream. Naturally, the occurrence of human 

 relics, and relics of so late a type as were these, was not easily 

 accepted by archaeologists or geologists. Probability and preju- 

 dice were both on the other side. But both must yield before suf- 

 ficient evidence ; and we make bold to say that, in the face of the 

 testimony now accumulated, skepticism is no longer reasonable. 

 The objection raised against the discovery is unworthy of the 

 able archaeologist * from whom it comes. " They belong to a mod- 

 ern industry, and were probably left in their shafts by the abo- 

 riginal gold-diggers a few centuries before the conquest. The 

 manner of their deposition alone proves this, and the case is given 

 up by Prof. Haynes in his appendix to Prof. Wright's book." 



We do not wish to be discourteous, but justice impels us to ask 

 if this distinguished archaeologist really expects the public, or the 

 scientist accustomed to the weighing of evidence, to accept the 

 insinuation of one who was not near the spot in preference to the 

 sworn statement of one who was there, and testifies that he took 

 the relics with his own hands out of the gravel, and that there 

 was no disturbance (such as an aboriginal shaft) or natural fissure 

 by which access could be obtained either there or in the neighbor- 

 hood. Verily, to us this seems like " criticism run mad." 



As to competency in a matter of this kind, we will hear Mr. G. 

 F. Becker, in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 

 1891, page 192 : 



" It has sometimes been objected to the authenticity of imple- 

 ments in the gravels that the finders, with the exception of Dr. 

 H. H. Boyce, were miners and not scientific men. Now, so far as 

 the detection of a fraud is concerned, a good miner, regularly 

 employed in superintending the workings, would be much more 

 competent than the ordinary geological visitor. The superin- 

 tendent sees, day by day, every foot of new ground exposed, and 

 it is his business to become thoroughly acquainted with its char- 

 acter ; while he is familiar with every device for ' salting ' a 

 claim. The geological visitor finds a mine timbered and smoked. 

 He can not fully acquaint himself with the ground, and is usually 

 unfamiliar with tricks. It is therefore an argument in favor of 

 the authenticity of implements that they have been found by 

 miners. . . . There is, in my opinion, no escape from the conclusion 

 that the implements actually occurred near the bottom of the 

 gravels, and that they were deposited where they were found at 

 the same time as the adjoining pebbles and matrix." 



In reference to the above-quoted opinion of Prof. Haynes we 



* Science, October 28, 1892. 



