54 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 93 



the type is a really unique token of the presence of anthropoids in 

 North America." 



The authenticity of the middle Pliocene bone " artifacts " of 

 Nebraska was likewise soon strongly attacked by Nelson in an article 

 entitled " Pseudo-Artifacts from the Pliocene of Nebraska." " Calling 

 attention to Gregory's article setting forth his matured views, Nelson 

 pointed out the necessity of an extremely careful investigation con- 

 cerning the assumed artificial nature of the bone implements, especially 

 since they stood alone without human remains, hearths, or stone imple- 

 ments for their manufacture. Of the former he had minutely examined 

 nearly 3,000 specimens. He points out that primitive artifacts fall into 

 two main classes, sharp edged or sharp pointed, and that ornaments are 

 usually tubular or flat. Moreover, they have a recognized shape or 

 design and usually show evidences of wear such as polish or abrasions 

 and perforations. If the Nebraska Pliocene specimens were cut from 

 bone prior to their fossilization, as is assumed, they too should show 

 shape, wear, polish, cutting marks, abrasions, and perforations. On 

 this basis Nelson finds no evidence either of their intentional design 

 or of artificial workmanship. A few suggest beads and awls of an 

 improvised, unfinished type. They do not correspond to definite arti- 

 fact types in later American archeological horizons but rather to a few 

 accidental fragments from the latter which have served temporary 

 purposes. The grooves on some of the fossil bone fragments are at 

 present inexplicable, but they are irregular and taken by themselves are 

 meaningless. Two or possibly three fragments carry decidedly sug- 

 gestive markings and are of a type which, if found by an archeologist 

 in a refuse heap, might be preserved as showing purposeless and 

 accidental human activity. No one can positively say that they are or 

 are not the result of human activity, though they may merely be tooth 

 marks. Likewise such splitting of bone as occurred prior to its fossili- 

 zation might equally be the result of crushing by carnivores or by man 

 between two stones. The more or less uniformly worn or polished 

 condition of some of the artifacts is dif^cult to explain but does not 

 appear to be the work of man. Nelson sums up his study as follows : 

 " The inevitable conclusion is, therefore, in my judgment, that the 

 presence of artifacts in the Snake Creek deposits is not established 

 and can not be established by the collections examined to date." 



Since 1927 both " Hesperopithecus" and the Pliocene " artifacts " 

 have faded into the background. Perhaps future paleontological dis- 

 coveries may revive them or bring a new " ape of the western world " 



** Nelson, 1928, pp. 316-317. Also see Boule, 1928, pp. 443-444, for a somewhat 

 ironic supplement. 



