OcroBER 1, 1897.] 
eluded these older deposits from consider- 
ation in connection with the question at 
issue. Taking up the later sand deposit, 
he showed that it is superficial and of lim- 
ited extent, and of so slight depth as not to 
preclude the probability that all of the ar- 
tificial material might have worked its way 
down from the surface; he also pointed out 
that this deposit appears to rest unconform- 
ably on the Pleistocene deposits, and gives 
other indications of being much newer. 
Passing then to the distribution of objects 
and materials, he showed that the artifacts 
diminish gradually and with fair uniform- 
ity downward, the distribution following 
the law displayed by organic matter and 
other substances originating at the surface ; 
he also noted that his observations and 
those of his collaborators indicate no per- 
ceptible difference in frequency of argillite 
and other materials at the surface and at 
_ the greater depths, and exhibited photo- 
graphs and specimens showing the occur- 
rence of a finished quartz blade at about 
the maximum depth of human relics. In 
his introductory remarks and incidentally 
later he pointed out that, whether the arti- 
facts be regarded as paleolithic or neolithic, 
they are precisely such as were found in 
use among the Algonquian Indians living 
on the site up to the time of white settle- 
ment. A brief paper by Thomas Wilson 
was read, in the absence of the author; it 
was chiefly an expression of conviction that 
a part of the argillite material should be 
classed as paleolithic. 
Speaking on behalf of the geologists, Pro- 
fessor Claypole discussed the processes of 
ferrugination, and pointed out that the fer- 
ruginous bands illustrated in the diagrams 
and photographs could not be regarded as 
Stratification lines, or as evidence of the 
aqueous origin of the sand-beds. Professor 
Salisbury, the geologist in charge of the 
State and Federal Surveys in the district, 
then discussed the geologic relations of the 
SCLENCE. 
511 
deposits; he described the thick beds of 
gravel and loam (which he had examined 
repeatedly without finding artificial ma- 
terial) as aqueo-glacial in origin and hence 
Pleistocene, and observed that the local 
and superficial bed of sand is younger, and 
was probably formed after the present river 
channel was excavated, at least in part, 
in the older deposits; he held that there 
was no decisive evidence that these sands 
were water-laid, that all of their phenomena 
could be explained otherwise, and that it 
was at least equally probable that they are 
eolian and perhaps quite recent. Professor 
T. C. Chamberlain emphasized the uncer- 
tainty as to the origin and age of the de- 
posits developed by the elaborate studies of 
Salisbury, Kummel, Knapp and others, 
and counseled caution in basing sweeping 
conclusions on so questionable premises. 
Dr. Penck described a somewhat parallel 
case in Europe, in which the question as to 
the age of relic-bearing deposits was set at 
rest by the finding of Roman objects associ- 
ated with the artifacts of stone. Dr. 
Munro questioned whether any of the ob- 
jects exhibited were paleolithic in the sense 
in which that term is used in Europe, and 
expressed doubt as to whether any trust- 
worthy evidence of paleolithic man has 
been found west of the Atlantic. In re- 
sponse to a call, Mr. G. K. Gilbert ques- 
tioned the validity of the supposed evidence 
of paleolithic man in Delaware valley, and 
mentioned cases coming under his own ob- 
servation in which natural and artificial 
material was commingled in recent deposits. 
Rising in rejoinder, Professor Putnam 
alluded to the discovery of an artifact be- 
neath a large bowlder, apparently in place 
in the older gravels, and mentioned the 
finding of a human cranium, apparently of 
Eskimoan type, in the same deposit ; and 
he reiterated his confidence in the preva- 
lence of argillite materials of paleolithic 
character in the basal layers of the sand 
