772 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



niust take the liberty of saying that it is logically irrelevant. 

 Prof. Haynes is only discussing the " find " in its relation to Ter- 

 tiary man, which is a totally different topic. The fallacy underly- 

 ing most of the objections to the Calif ornian relics is the tacit 

 assumption that the glaciation of the lava beds was contempo- 

 raneous with that of the Northern States. This is unproved, and 

 probably untrue. Its rejection may remove the chief difficulty. 



Once more we must return to the charge. We regret to be 

 obliged to criticise the same critic for another example of illogical 

 reasoning, but, in view of the severity of. the attack on Prof. 

 Wright, we feel that the assailants should not and will not object 

 to the counter-thrust. 



The story of the Nampa image is now well known. It was 

 told by Prof. Wright, in 1890 and 1891, to the Boston Society of 

 Natural History, and by them published in their Proceedings. 

 The image is a small figure of burnt clay, about one inch and a 

 half long, which is said to have been brought up by the sand- 

 pump from the surface of an old soil at the depth of three hun- 

 dred and twenty feet below a sheet of lava fifteen feet thick. The 

 "find" was not hastily and superficially examined. A long and 

 careful inquiry and a visit were the means of eliciting the details, 

 and collateral investigation was made into the reputation and an- 

 tecedents of the informants. All this has been before the world 

 for many months, but no refutation or rebutting testimony has 

 been offered. Yet the following extract will show how contemptu- 

 ously the investigation is tossed aside : 



" Dr. Wright's last example is the feeblest of all — the Nampa 

 image.* ... It is sad to destroy illusions, but when this same 

 image, with its story, was laid before a well-known government 

 geologist, he at once recognized it as a clay toy manufactured by 

 the neighboring Pocatello Indians, and the person displaying it 

 replied, with engaging frankness, 'Well, now, don't give me 

 away.' " f 



Mark in this connection the fact that not a fragment of coun- 

 ter-evidence is brought. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to 

 shake the previous testimony. An anonymous letter could hardly 

 be used in a court of law, yet here is not even so much as that. 

 Merely an anonymous statement is brought forward solemnly by 

 one who is supposed to be accustomed to serious investigation as 

 a rebuttal of written and repeated testimony from men of stand- 



* Science, October 28, 1892. 



jf Another version of this story is given by a second critic (see American Anthropologist, 

 January, 1893), who reports the reply as follows: "Don't give me away; I've fooled a lot 

 of fellows already, and I'd like to fool some more.'' The difference is not important, but 

 it emphasizes the denial given below. > 



