694 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1888. 



Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. He enlarges (and very 

 X)roperly to) upon his extended experience with the paleolithic imple- 

 ments of the world. He expresses, without hesitation or doubt, that 

 these implements were the intentional work of man ; that they were not 

 made by, nor did they belong to the Indian of that country. He says, 

 page 385 : 



Bnt no such traces of Indian occupation has the most painstaking investigation 

 revealed to me in many places where I have found the new types of rude implements 

 in considerable quantities. 



Again, page 388 : 



It will be noticed that all of these rude aud simple tools have been fabricated out 

 of the hardest, heaviest, toughest kinds of rocks that the region where they are found 

 can furnish. They are commonly made of white or milky quartz, or quartzite, felsite, 

 or of some very compact variety of syenite or granite. Often they have been fash- 

 ioned out of a pebble from the glacial drift, which still retains a portion of its original 

 surface or crust. This circumstance proves that they must necessarily be post-glacial 

 in date, whether they have been found deeply bedded in the earth or upon the sur- 

 face of ploughed fields. 



Professor Haynes sums up his argument: 



I infer the former existence in New England of a race of men different from and less 

 advanced than the Indians, because I have found in many localities, where none of 

 the ordinary traces of Indian occupation could be discovered, a large quantity of 

 stone implements of ruder types and coarser make than those habitually used by 

 them. Whether tbese are actual relics of primeval man, i. e., of a race who lived 

 loug anterior to the Indians, or whether they are the work of the degraded descendants 

 of an earlier people who had succumbed to the Indians, I do not undertake to pro- 

 nounce. 



The difference between Professor Haynes and myself is that he is un- 

 willing to attribute these implements to a paleolithic period. He insists 

 that to be evidence of this the implements in question should be found 

 in the river gravels, or in a corresponding geologic stratum. I know 

 that in many countries where the existence of a paleolithic period is 

 undoubted, the implements (principally Chellian or of the earliest 

 epoch) have been found on the surface, and they are identified as such, 

 by comparison with others found in the river gravels. My experience 

 with these implements in the two continents justifies me in identifying 

 those found in America as belonging to the same stage of culture to 

 which the Chellian implement of France and England belonged, and, 

 consequently, enables me to call them paleolithic implements. 



James J. H. Gregory, Marblehead, Massachusetts, February 6, 1888. Has found 

 caches containing half a peck one foot below surface. 



J. F. Fiisbie, M. D., Newton, Massachusetts, February 16, 1888. Has none. New- 

 ton Natural History Society has a few. They are found quite abundantly in this 

 vicinity. Many Indian relics found in this city and adjoining towu— Watertown. 



Samuel Henshaw, Boston, Society Natural History, Berkeley street, Boston, Massa- 

 chusetts, February 9, 1888. Has no rude implements. "Our collection was presented 

 to the Museum of American Ai-chneology and Ethnology at Cambridge in 1867." 



Samuel A. Green, Massachusetts Historical Society, 30 Tremont street, Boston, 

 Massachusetts, February 14, 1888. Has a collection of rude implements, found at 

 Groton and along the bank of the Nashau River. 



