NovEMBER 3, 1899.] 
of the Paleolithic and Neolithic ages should 
be reversed. This view, if accepted, would 
satisfactorily explain the apparent anomaly 
of the California implements. The real 
answer to this objection is that we know 
but, little concerning California prehistoric 
archeology. It presents many problems 
which have not been solved, nor indeed do 
we seem to be in the way of solving them. 
Some of these are as follows : 
The Indian languages of the Pacific slope 
have peculiarities as yet unexplained. A 
A fringe of country lying between the coast 
range and the ocean contains a greater 
number of stocks or families of languages 
(29) than all the rest of North America 
combined.* 
The reason for this has never been ex- 
plained even theoretically or tentatively. 
The arrowpoints and spearheads of the Pa- 
cific Coast are notably different from those 
of other parts of the country. To such ex- 
tent is this true that in my classification 
of these implements and weaponst I was 
compelled to make a separate class for the 
accommodation of the implements from 
this district. Pottery, forming the most 
serviceable, and which might be considered 
the-most important, domestic utensils, and 
as such used by nearly all prehistoric and 
primitive peoples, makes complete default 
on the Pacific Coast; this, too, while their 
neighbors, the natives of Mexico and the 
Pueblo country, even the wild and savage 
Papagos, make and use it continually, some 
being of the largest forms with the finest 
decorations. Basketry in some cases super- 
sedes pottery for carrying liquids, and the 
finest in America and perhaps in the world, 
either in ancient or modern times, are to be 
found on the California coast. { 
* See Major Powell’s Linguistic Map ; Seventh An- 
nual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 
1885-86, pp. 7-142. 
+ Report of the U. S. National Museum, 1897. 
{See the Hudson Collection just purchased by and 
now in the U.S. National Museum. 
- SCIENCE. 
639 
The ollas (carrying or cooking jars taking 
the place of pottery) are made of stone 
(serpentine) instead of clay. These are 
some of the California anomalies. When 
the problems presented by them have been 
satisfactorily solved, that relating to pol- 
ished stone implements may not appear so 
difficult. 
It has been objected that the stone im- 
plements of seemingly so high antiquity 
were not water worn and bore no traces of 
long or distant transportation by the moun- 
tain streams. An answer is patent. There 
is no evidence that they were transported 
or rolled any distance by water, and until 
this fact be established, there is no need to 
attempt the demonstration of its cause. 
We should establish the fact before we ex- 
plain its cause. 
The study of California archeology, in 
order that it be satisfactory, requires a 
union of three scientists: the archeologist, 
the geologist, and the historian who shall 
act as lawyer and judge. The Calaveras 
skull incident has closed, has passed. into 
history, and its facts are to be determined 
by evidence, the same as any other fact in 
history. The first question is, did Mattison 
actually find the skull as he says he did? 
and second, had it been planted in order to 
‘fool Professor Whitney’? I think if this 
issue was made up to be tried before a court 
and jury on the lawful evidence submitted, 
the answers would be in the affirmative on 
the first question and negative as to the 
second. Until this issue is determined, it 
is folly to try the case by popular clamor 
and to denounce its possible believers or 
pour vials of contempt and contumely upon 
their heads. 
Because I have favored the authenticity 
and genuineness of specimens which have 
been assailed, I would not have it under- 
stood that I am deluded into the belief that 
all specimens are genuine. I recognize 
that frauds have been committed, that 
