320 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1889. 



of prehistoric man, it has not attained to the dignity and importance, 

 as a science, which it has in Europe. 



The Smithsonian Institution, National Museum, Bureau of Ethnol- 

 ogy, Peabody Museum, and several other institutions whose names will 

 occur to the reader, are exceptions to this statement. There are many 

 private persons who should also be excepted, and the number, I am 

 gratified to say, who are giving serious attention to this matter and are 

 doing faithful and valuable work in this connection, is increasing each 

 year. 



I have considered, as part of my duty, the endeavor to awaken and 

 elevate the public mind to the importance of the new science of prehis- 

 toric anthropology, and, so far as possible, prevent the search for In- 

 dian relics as a matter of commerce, and cause collectors to regard 

 these objects in their true light as aids to science; not as gewgaws and 

 trinkets. 



In-the performance of this duty I have, during the past year, deliv- 

 ered ten public lectures; distributed from my office several hundred 

 copies of circular No. 47, descriptive of the prehistoric exhibit at the 

 Cincinnati Exposition, that has a bearing in this direction, and have writ- 

 ten (not yet published) a study of prehistoric anthropology which, be- 

 ing intended for general distribution, it is hoped will not be without its 

 effect. There has been also prepared a circular (No. 49) containing in- 

 formation for the guidance of explorers and collectors. 



IMPORTANCE OF THE SCIENCE OF PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOLOGY BETTER RECOG- 

 NIZED IN EUROrE THAN IN AMERICA. 



Despite the fact that the discovery of prehistoric man in Europe was 

 so many years, possibly so many hundreds of years, later than his dis- 

 covery in America, 1 am compelled by the facts to declare that Europeans, 

 because of their interest in the new science, have established prehis- 

 toric anthropology on a broader basis and a tinner foundation, and have 

 given to it more thorough and scientific treatment than has been done 

 in the United States. If I make a comparison in this regard between 

 the two countries to the detriment of our own, it will only be that we 

 may benefit thereby, may take warning and so redouble and direct our 

 efforts, using the opportunity and material which we have in such im- 

 proved methods and increased endeavors that in future years the dif- 

 ference will not be to our disadvantage. If the following statements 

 will direct the attention and increase the energy of our scientists to 

 proper exertions in this regard, I shall feel amply repaid for my labor. 



Our acquaintance with the aborigines of this country began with Co- 

 lumbus in 1492, but the real history and our first actual knowledge of 

 them began no earlier than 1600, probably JG01 or 1008 — now only two 

 hundred and eighty years ago. Americans, therefore, of the present 

 day are removed from the prehistoric man of the whole country only by 

 that period, nor is it even so long, for this was the commencement of 



