November 25, 189.'.] 



SCIENCE. 



297 



gravels, and no highly specialized forms or other works of art are 

 found with tliem, the conclusion is reached that they are palaeo- 

 lithic implements and that the art of the gravel-forming time was 

 exclusively rude or palaeolithic. Yet we may go down to the Poto- 

 mac in the District of Columbia, or to the Washita in Arkansas, or 

 to the Neosho in Indian Territory, and gather tons of similar rude 

 forms made by our modern neolithic tribes, without finding a 

 single specialized form or a single object of art aside from these 

 rude forms. It is not my intention, howevei-, to try to reconstruct 

 the culture of that time, as 1 am not sure that there was any 

 culture, but to point out the total inadequacy of the evidence upon 

 which the theories of a particular culture are based. 



The torrent-swept flood-plains of glacial times were hardly habit- 

 able places, and we do not know that there was game or fish to be 

 sought there; but the great beds of bowlders then and there accu- 

 mulating furnished more or less raw material suitable for flaking, 

 and if men, supposing they existed, coming down to the banks of 

 the streams during periods of low water, essayed to rough-out 

 their spear-points and knives in the usual fashion, the ever-re- 

 cun-ing torrents would scatter the refuse about, leaving the coarse 

 pieces in one eddy and whirling the lighter ones to other eddies 

 below. 



From this and from what has gone before it is clearly seen that 

 these reputed gravel objects are probably not implements at all, 

 and, whether they are or not, that they are as likely to have been 

 left by neolithic as by palseolithio men. 



So far have the advocates of a European classification for 

 American phenomena gone beyond the limits of prudence in the 

 treatment of these so called patoolithic stones, that a radical 

 change is demanded in the methods of classifying and labelling 

 these objects in many of our museums; and it is to be lamented 

 that a revision of all literature relating to the subject cannot be 

 made in order to prevent the further spread of errors already too 

 deeply rooted in the minds of the people, without offensive criti- 

 cism of the work of living students. 



This point may be illustrated by one example of the many 

 that could be cited. The quartz objects from Minnesota, usually 

 known as the Babbitt finds, of which so much has been said and 

 written, prove on careful examination to be modern work-shop 

 refuse settled into the talus of the glacial terrace. The slightly 

 worked pieces heretofore collected and published as palaeolithic 

 implements almost without question on the part of archeeologists 

 as to their origin or manner of occurrence, have no more intimate 

 relation to the history of the glacial terraces than have the trees 

 that grow upon their surface or the rodents that burrow in their 

 sandy soil. 



No rude flaked stone should be classified or labelled as an im- 

 plement until it is proved to be an implement, and no specimen 

 should be called palaeolithic simply because it is rude or because 

 it is found in the gravels, howsoever old. The attempt to 

 classify these rude stones and to arrange them under types after 

 the manner of European implements is sufficiently characterized, 

 when it is stated that there is not in the museums of Europe or 

 America a single piece of flaked stone found in place in the gravels 

 of America and satisfactorily verified that can with absolute safety 

 be classified as an implement at all. 



If I should find a rude stone in place in the gravels — I have 

 tried long in vain — I should permit myself to say only this, 

 "Here is a work of art dating back to glacial times, I cannot tell 

 whether it is a finished implement or not, as there are but slight 

 signs of specialization and no indications of use, and I cannot tell 

 whether it was made and left by a paleeolithic or by a neolithic 

 people, because neither of these peoples had a patent upon rude 

 forms." Even if rude flaked stones are found in gravels ten times 

 as old as the Trenton gravels, it must still be shown that they are 

 not neolithic before it can be safely asserted that they are palaeo- 

 lithic, for the exclusively rude period of flaked art observed in 

 Europe is so extraordinary that its repetition in other countries 

 would approach the marvellous. 



Little by little the advocates of a period of paleolithic culture 

 in America have been forced to give up the idea that there is any 

 other reliable test of the age of a culture than that furnished by 

 geology ; yet they are still going on utterly failing to recognize 



the equally important fact that geologic phenomena cannot be 

 safely observed save by geologists, and I may add with respect to 

 gravel phenomena that the observations of geologists are not 

 always infallible, the observations of geologists who have not 

 especially studied gravels being of little greater weight thaD 

 those of laymen. They must further concede that the finding 

 of rude implements in the gravels or other ancient formations is 

 not proof of a palaeolithic age until it is sufficiently proved that 

 the culture represented is exclusively rude culture, a point not 

 attained, and I fear well nigh unattainable. 



It follows from the above considerations that all speculations 

 upon the culture status, ethnic relationships and geographic dis- 

 tribution of gravel-man in America based upon the discovery of 

 rude forms of art are premature and misleading, and that, instead 

 of being on firm ground and well advanced in respect to the an- 

 tiquity and history of early man in America, we are not yet safely 

 on the threshold of the study; and it is patent that until geologists 

 take hold of the problem and prosecute the work, not as a side 

 issue but as a great and leading question germane to the field of 

 geologic research, little true progress will be made. 



My explorations have been made with the greatest care and 

 rarely without the aid and advice of some of the foremost geolo- 

 gists and anthropologists of the country. The conclusions reached 

 have been freely discussed, and are generally approved by those 

 familiar with the facts. These conclusions are subject to modifi- 

 cation through the acquisition of new evidence derived from actual 

 research in the field and in no other way. 



In closing I would add that conservative students of American 

 archaeology will find it wise to consider well the following points 

 relating to early man in America. 1. Is there a sufficiently full 

 and sound body of evidence to demonstrate the presence of glacial 

 man in America? 2. Is there satisfactory evidence that glacial 

 man, if his existence be admitted upon the evidence available, 

 was in any particular region in the palaeolithic stage of culture ? 

 3. Is there satisfactory evidence that the rude glacial finds in any 

 case are implements at all? 4. Are deductions as to the habits, 

 customs, arts, industries, institutions, and racial affinities of a 

 people called for until at least one implement left by them is dis- 

 covered, verified, and found to bear indisputable evidence of 

 adaptation to or employment in some kind of use? 



MODERN SYNTHETIC GEOMETRY VERSUS EUCLID. 



BT ROBERT J. ALET, INDIANA UNIVBRSITT, BLOOMINGTON, IND. 



Foe more than two thousand years Euclid has held almost un- 

 disputed sway in the field of synthetic geometry. So strong a 

 hold has it on school men that few American colleges dare offer 

 anything else to freshmen. Is this because of tradition, or is 

 there something in Euclid that makes it intrinsically better than 

 anything mathematics has produced in modern times? To say 

 that it holds its place merely because of tradition would probably 

 be too severe a criticism, and would certainly call forth vigorous 

 protest from its friends and defenders. To say that the wonder- 

 ful advance in geometrical science in the last two hundred years 

 has given us nothing superior to Euclid would be a doubtful 

 statement, and almost an insult to the labors of such men as 

 Monge, Poncelet, Carnot, Steiner, Von Staudt, and Cremona. 

 No other branch of mathematics clings so tenaciously to that 

 which is old, as geometry. In analysis, physics, mechanics, as- 

 tronomy, everywhere but in geometry, the results and methods of 

 modem thought are freely used, and no one doubts the propriety 

 of their use. Why not take advantage of the same advances in 

 geometry ? 



I have no quarrel with Euclid. It has been and is still a great 

 factor in education. The severe training it gives in logical, clear 

 thinking would be hard to equal. No doubt every student leaves 

 Euclid with his mental powers greatly strengthened, and with in- 

 creased ability to grapple with other studies and with the practi- 

 cal problems of life. Considered as to its educational value, but 

 few objections can be urged against it. Mathematically consid- 

 ered, there are many things in favor of the modern synthetic 

 geometry. Euclid is far more nearly a treatise on logic than en 



