ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN AMERICA — NELSON 481 



PALEONTOLOGICAL CLAIMS 



The interesting archeological contributions made from time to time 

 by investigators in the related fields of paleontology and geology — 

 contributions which have done more than anything else to forward 

 the solution of the problem of the antiquity of man in America — are 

 fortunately to be treated by a specialist. It is, therefore, not my 

 intention here to consider this long series of tantalizing discoveries in 

 detail, but rather to present the accumulated evidence in summary 

 form so as to obtain something tangible on which to ojffer comment 

 and likewise something with which to contrast our archeological 

 findings. 



In the course of desultory reading extending over more than 20 

 years, I have collected bibliographic references to alleged isolated 

 archeological discoveries made in geologic deposits on a variety of 

 occasions more or less accidentally. I have done this in the hope of 

 sometime checking out the essential facts from the original publica- 

 tions, and thus, perhaps, arriving at a definite conclusion on the 

 subject of antiquity. At present the checked list of such recorded 

 items totals 187, a figure which does not include several obviously 

 absurd claims, such as a petrified sandal found in one of the second- 

 ary formations of Nevada, or a flaked implement recently hoisted, 

 it was said, from a Kansas oil well over 2,000 feet deep. Doubtless 

 there are many more citations and they are increasing annually, 

 especially since Science Service a few years ago assumed the burden 

 of prompt and adequate preliminary^ investigation of all reported 

 indications within the United States. Indeed, so numerous are these 

 discoveries, ranging as they do from early in the eighteenth century 

 to the present year, that only a bookworm or a confirmed cripple 

 could have the incentive deliberately to run them down. Besides, 

 my own ardor has been considerably dampened by the gradual 

 realization that the final solution of the antiquity problem does not 

 lie in this quarter but in the original open field. The recorded data, 

 as might be expected, turned out to be of very unequal scientific 

 worth, and even those finds most positively vouched for — which 

 sometimes prove entirely too much — cannot now be properly evalu- 

 ated. Their significance in the end will depend upon new discoveries. 

 Nevertheless, such as they are, these reported archeological discoveries 

 are of considerable interest, if for no other reason than the fact that 

 they were recorded and sometimes even brought to light by men of 

 training and wide experience in their respective professions. In 

 addition, they have been reviewed over and over again, favorably as 

 well as unfavorably, by equally competent authorities. We are, in 



