DECEMBER 22, 1899. ] 
ture, is radically allied to the ancient Pueblos 
and to the short-headed people of to-day in 
other parts of New Mexico and Arizona, and 
possibly in old Mexico. 
Dr. M. H. Saville presented a paper entitled 
‘Notes on the Mexican Codex Telleriano-Re- 
mensis.’ 
CHARLES H. JUDD, 
Secretary. 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
DR. WILSON ON PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOLOGY. 
In ScreNcE October 27th and November 34d, 
last, Dr. Thomas Wilson has committed several 
errors which if not corrected are calculated 
seriously to mislead one not familiar with the 
subject. The position he occupies as an officer 
in the United States National Museum of itself 
gives weight to any paper he may publish, 
added to which he calls special attention to his 
travels in Europe and his thorough familiarity 
with the museums and individuals who believe 
in a paleolithic period, his acquaintance with 
the Dordogne, and his many years in the Na- 
tional Museum, all of which he asserts pecu- 
liarly fits him to form a valuable opinion in any 
comparison of American with European Imple- 
ments. Asin at least one paragraph Dr. Wil- 
son has assailed certain assertions of the writer 
and has referred to the same by misquoting 
what has been written, opportunity should be 
taken to show his errors if such exist. 
His subject is Paleolithic man in Europe, 
and America, and his existence through eons 
of time, only measureable by geologic periods ; 
through all of which man chipped stone and 
did not know the art of grinding it; or as Dr. 
Wilson contends, of sawing or drilling stone, 
of making pottery, or of the use of the bow 
and arrow ; that paleolithic implements are in 
a class by themselves. Dr. Wilson goes further 
than do the European archeeologists ; he adopts 
their classification and holds up a danger flag 
to Americans who would deny the existence of 
evidence of a paleolithic period in America. 
The writer’s denial that European classification 
is based on sound scientific reasoning he stren- 
uously combats. 
Dr. Wilson is one of ten or a dozen members 
of the Anthropological staff of the United 
SCIENCE. 
935 
States National Museum, and though the ma- 
jority of that staff have had equally as good 
opportunity to study the American branch of 
the subject, and several of them far better than 
he, he stands alone in his views. He takes ex- 
ception to the writer’s opinion that the art of 
chipping stone, technically considered, is more 
difficult than is pecking and grinding. Yet all 
experience as well as all implements employed 
by savage races wherever found, show that the 
tools used in chipping are complicated, whereas 
a simple discoidal hammer constitutes the sole 
implement employed in pecking and battering 
stone and is found in all countries throughout 
all periods. No one has suggested the reversal 
of the paleolithic and neolithic periods for the 
simple reason that such classification is illogical, 
it would argue the absence of man during the 
whole paleolithic period from the areas of 
metamorphic stone on the continent as such 
stone does not chip. All experience teaches 
that man of the stone age wherever found was 
thoroughly acquainted with the artificial frac- 
ture of the available material of his vicinity 
whether for chipping flint, for battering diorite 
or kindred stones, or for hammering copper 
which to him was but a malleable stone. In 
chipping flint and similar stones, the artificial 
fracture varies enormously, even in the same 
ledge, and consequently is treated invariably in 
the way best suited to its peculiar texture. The 
present classification of stone age periods has 
become bewildering chiefly because of its many 
divisions and subdivisions. Many of these are 
very useful and suggestive especially that of 
Thomsen of Denmark who divided the human 
periods into Stone, Bronze and Iron, but when 
we read Paleolithic, Neolithic, Prehistoric, 
Copper, Eolithic, Upper and Lower Tertiary, 
the same of Quarternary, Mesolithic, Acqui- 
tanean, Sortorian, several classes of Lacustrian 
and a host of Cave periods, named from ani- 
mals present, or from the type of stone imple- 
ments found, it must be admitted the series be- 
come difficult to remember. This list is but 
partial and if it were necessary could be greatly 
increased, but, however useful for local pur- 
poses or for a single country, it will not answer 
for general stone age conditions. Adrien de 
Mortillet made a most valuable contribution 
