296 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XX. No. 512 



question. Let us inquire whence came the millions of flaked 

 implements of quartz, quartzite, chert, flint, slate, argillite, jasper, 

 and novaculite that cover the hills and valleys of America, that 

 occur upon every fishing-ground, shell bank, refuse heap, and 

 village site occupied by the American aborigines, historic and pre- 

 historic? They did not grow to be picked like ripe fruit from 

 trees, nor could they have been dug up like potatoes from the 

 ground. Where are the quarries and the shops from which the 

 Indian secured his enormous supplies? For every million of spear 

 and arrow points, knives, perforators, and scrapers — and there 

 were many millions used by him — there are somewhere in America 

 many times as many millions of broken and malformed failures of 

 the very kind found in our quarries and shops, and where are they 

 now but in these quarries and shops? The conclusion is inevitable. 

 The finished and the unfinished (or rude) forms complement each 

 other, and constitute a unit in art and in time. It was only our 

 entire lack of knowledge of the subject that made other theories 

 necessary or other conclusions possible. 



These determinations with respect to the nature of the great 

 body of the rudely-flaked stones of America may be expected to 

 have some bearing upon the question of the occupation of this con- 

 tinent in glacial times by a people not yet advanced beyond the 

 primal or palaeolithic stage of culture, since the theory of that 

 occupation is based upon the discovery of closely analogous ob- 

 jects in the gravels and elsewhere. 



Before the refuse of quarrying and manufacture were studied 

 and the true nature of the rudely-flaked forms determined, these 

 objects had been quite extensively collected, and because of their 

 rudeness and their supposed close resemblance to the early forms 

 of European flaked-stone tools, had been classed as palaeolithic 

 and were so labelled in many museums, and as such found a place 

 in the archseologic literature of both continents. It is now con- 

 ceded by scientific men that this is all wrong, and that in the 

 present state of our knowledge the separation of a single specimen 

 from the main body of flaked stone art in America, save upon 

 purely geologic evidence, is vfholly unwarranted. 



It is manifestly folly to attempt to select from the mass of these 

 objects certain individual specimens to be arbitrarily called palaeo- 

 lithic. The selections made are quite as likely to be the youngest 

 as the oldest. It is a well-established fact that many of the 

 xudest flaked forms known, the simplest possible art shapes, are 

 obtained from the shell-deposits and from the soapstone quarries 

 iDf the eastern United States, and thus represent the most modern 

 pViases of neolithic Indian work in stone. Even if it be conceded 

 for the sake of argument that there are multitudes of true palseo- 

 lithic objects and implements scattered over the country, it is 

 certain that up to the present date we have established no standards 

 of form-comparison by means of which they can be detected. 



Until geologic formations, glacial or otherwise, have furnished 

 demonstrably palaeolithic forms in sufficient numbers to warrant 

 the establishment of types of implements peculiar to these forma- 

 tions, surface finds can be of no service whatever to advocates of 

 the palaeolithic idea. 



The reported discovery of rude forms of implements in the gravels 

 at Trenton, New Jersey, and subsequently at several points in 

 the Mississippi Valley, led to the conclusion that palaeolithic man 

 dwelt here in gravel-forming time, and the theory that a well- 

 differentiated period of rude flaked stone art precedes, in the 

 normal order of development, a pecked and polished stone period, 

 found a foothold in this country. Observations have multiplied, 

 and the occurrence of flaked stones in the gravels is now supported 

 by a large body of evidence. If even a small percentage of these 

 observations are authentic, the evidence ought to be considered 

 sufficient to settle one of the questions at issue, that of the age of 

 occupation; for the finding of a very small number of works of 

 art, either implements, shop rejects, or flakes — in fact, anything 

 artificial — in the gravels by competent and reputable observers of 

 geologic phenomena is ail that is required to satisfy the scientific 

 ■world of the presence of man of some grade of culture, primitive 

 or otherwise, in gravel-forming times. To this conclusion there 

 •can be no serious objection. So far as I know, the possibility that 

 Shere were glacial men, inter-glacial, and post-glacial men some- 

 where upon the continent is not seriously questioned by any one. 



The infancy of the race may have been passed upon the eastern 

 continent, but there is no sufficient reason why America may not 

 have had a share in the nursing. 



As I am not prepared to challenge the testimony brought for- 

 ward by various collectors tending to establish the glacial age of 

 human occupation, defective as much of that testimony seems to 

 be, I will not raise the question of age, but proceed to consider 

 the bearing of the evidence furnished by the quarry shops upon 

 the question of the grade of culture indicated by the so-called 

 gravel finds; the age, or period, of the occupation and the grade 

 of culture attained being two very distinct things. Admitting 

 for present convenience, then, that men dwelt in America in 

 glacial times, I take up the question as to whether the culture of 

 the hypothetic people, as indicated by the evidence furnished, is 

 surely palaeolithic. It has been repeated!}' stated, and is still be- 

 lieved by many, that the gravel finds of the eastern United States 

 closely resemble well-established European types of palaeolithic 

 implements. The critical observer will find, however, that this 

 resemblance is superficial, and that they have a verj' much closer 

 analogy with the rude quarry-shop rejects of America; and the 

 latter are not really implements, and should not be called such 

 any more than the faulty blocks of marble left in and about the 

 quarries at Carrara should be classed as statuary. The distinctive 

 feature of European palaeolithic implements is, or ought to be, 

 their evidence of specialization of form, their adaptation to 

 definite use, indicated by what is known as secondary flaking; 

 whereas these objects from the American gravels, with rare ex- 

 ceptions indeed, exhibit a total lack of this character. The sem- 

 blance of specialization in thousands of the rude quarry rejects 

 which have been worked hardly more than to test the flakability 

 of the stone, not having begun to assume the contour and appear- 

 ance of the implement contemplated by the workman, is more 

 pronounced than in any of these gravel specimens. Appearance 

 of specialization of form, may, therefore, signify nothing, and, if 

 found, must not be taken alone as sufficient evidence that the ob- 

 ject having it is a bona fide implement. 



It should be further noted that not only are the gravel finds 

 identical in form and material with the ordinary failures of the 

 modern aborigines, but that they display the same mastery of 

 shaping operations, beginning in the same way, progressing along 

 the same lines, and ending at the same points, exhibiting no evi- 

 dence of special adaptation to use in cutting, digging, picking, 

 striking, or any other primitive manipulative act. It is also ob- 

 served that none of these articles exhibit well-defined evidences 

 of having been used, although it must be conceded that the rudest 

 peoples made their tools for use; and it would appear that, as 

 a rule, if they had been used they would bear very decided indi- 

 cations of that use, and would show a certain amount of speciali- 

 zation as a result of that use. Considering all of these points, I 

 call attention to the extreme probability that these reputed gravel 

 objects are not implements at all, but ordinary failures resulting 

 from the manufacture of more highly specialized forms. 



Again, it will be remembered that the gravel finds of the Pacific 

 coast and some of those east of the mountains are neolithic, the 

 forms being of a high grade technically and functionally, so that 

 neolithic man is shown to have probably existed upon the continent 

 whilst the eastern gravels were forming, and the condition of the art 

 phenomena imply that he had dwelt here or somewhere east, west, 

 north, or south, for a very long time, for thousands of years, if 

 not for tens of thousands, and that, too, since he had passed the 

 primal stages of art designated palaeolithic. 



How then is it to be proved that these particular rude forms, 

 found so sparingly scattered through the gravels at Trenton and 

 elsewhere, really represent and prove a palaeolithic age, since they 

 may simply be the rejects of manufacture left upon the hanks of 

 the glacial rivers by advanced neolithic men, who dwelt as intel- 

 ligent men would upon the upper terraces out of reach of the icy 

 floods? The argument that in these gravels rude forms only are 

 found has no value whatsoever, since, as I have shown, it is the 

 rule that where the raw material was sought beyond habitable 

 sites no work save the roughing-out was undertaken, and no 

 flaked forms save rude ones were left upon the ground. Because 

 a few dozen specimens of rudely-flaked stones are found in the 



