SCIENCE 



NEW YOEK, JANUARY 20, 1893. 



GRAVEL MAN AND PALEOLITHIC CULTURE; A PRE- 

 LIMINARY WORD. 



BT "W. H. HOLMES, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 



The theory of a palseolitbic man in eastern America has been 

 before the archceological world for a number of years and much 

 has been said pro and con. A large body of evidence, believed by 

 advocates of the theory to be satisfactory and conclusive, has been 

 collected and published, and theories, borrowed and evolved, have 

 been promulgated, discussed, and modified until the literature of 

 the subject has grown to imposing volume. 



It should be observed, however, that the term "palaeolithic" 

 does not fully cover the ground.' The subject is not a simple one. 

 Two important questions are involved, and these should, for the 

 sake of clearness, be treated separately. These questions are, 

 first, Is there evidence of a glacial man in eastern America? and 

 second. Is there evidence of a palEeolithic or primal stage or period 

 of culture? Although closely related in some respects, these 

 questions are, in the main, independent of one another. The 

 existence of an ice-age man may be proved without securing the 

 least evidence of the existence of a palseolithic period, the latter 

 expression implying a primal and well differentiated stage or 

 period of art in stone. It is possible to collect a large body of ob- 

 jects of art from a given formation without being able to make 

 any deductions whatsoever as to the particular stage of culture 

 represented, since certain types of artificial products necessarily 

 appear at all periods from the beginning to the end of the stone 

 age, making hasty conclusions unsafe. On many sites represent- 

 ing middle neolithic culture of modern dale countless numbers of 

 flaked stones may be collected without the discovery of a single 

 specimen that the advocates of a palaeolithic man would not, three 

 years ago, have called palseolithic. Practically the same condi- 

 tions will no doubt be found to prevail on Aztec and Maya quarry 

 sites, I'epresenting the most advanced stone-age culture. 



On the other hand, the existence of a palasolithic, or primal 

 stage of culture, if such there was in this country, may be proved 

 independently of glacial gravel finds, for it is possible that such a 

 stage of art may have existed before, during, or after the gravel- 

 forming epochs. The proofs would be found in pre-glacial or 

 post-glacial formations or upon inhabited sites of any period fur- 

 nishing the necessary data ; but demonstration is not easy in any 

 case, as it is necessary in each instance to show that the art re- 

 covered is actually palaeolithic art and not merely a partial repre- 

 sentation of neolithic art — of the ruder tools or the rejects of 

 an advanced people. The burden of proof rests with advocates 

 of the theory, since they assume to introduce to the world cul- 

 tures, peoples, and conditions not within the limits of ordinary 

 experience. 



It will be seen that in the discussion uf these questions two dis- 

 tinct classes of testimony are involved, one dealing with the phe- 

 nomena;of human handicraft, and the other with the phenomena 

 of geologic formations. These phenomena are complex and their 

 relations obscure and subtle in a high degree, and it would appear 

 that until students of the great questions of chronology and cul- 

 ture acquire a thorough scientific knowledge of geology as well as 

 of all early phases of human art the discussions in which they in- 

 dulge can be of little real value. 



The fact is that the field has, up to this time, been occupied 

 mainly by amateurs who have not mastered the necessary funda- 

 mental branches of science. The work done is mainly their 

 work, the literature produced is mainly their literature, and the 



world has received its impressions from this source. This no 

 doubt is an unavoidable condition of the evolution of archEeologic 

 science. It is necessary that all departments of investigation 

 should pass through this novitiate or formative stage and the 

 world of science must look with lenience upon the mistakes of 

 the period, for that which is to-day or may be to-morrow is in 

 great part the outcome of that which was yesterday. But the 

 time has now come for a change — for the opening of an era 

 when scientific acquirements of the highest possible order shall 

 be brought to bear upon these questions. Anthropologists are 

 now to unite with geologists in investigating the early history 

 of man and his culture, just as the geologist has been for 

 years assisting the biologist in unfolding the history of living 

 things. 



The requirements of the investigation may be briefly outlined 

 and the present status of the evidence characterized. In the first 

 place, the discussion of the early history of man requires a scien- 

 tific knowledge of certain phases of art, including especially all 

 flaked-stone art. Until very recently the origin, genesis, and 

 history of artificially flaked stones have been but imperfectly un- 

 derstood. Those forms not properly designated implements were 

 , not separated from those properly so called, although it is found 

 that the former probably greatly outnumber the latter, and as 

 loog as all were indiscriminately treated as implements their dis- 

 cussion was little more than a farce. The discussion of flaked- 

 stone art in America has consisted mainly in describing and 

 illustrating unfinished forms and rejects of manufacture as im- 

 plements and in speculating on their possible age, functions and 

 ethnic bearings. This fundamental misconception as to the na- 

 ture of a large portion of flaked stones has led to most deplorable 

 mistakes in interpretation, and erroneous theories of age and 

 culture have been hatched and fed and still feed upon these pri- 

 mary blunders. The whole discussion of early man has been so 

 surcharged with misconceptions of fact and errors of interpreta- 

 tion that all is vitiated as a stream with impurities about its 

 source. Until an exhaustive scientific study of the origin, form, 

 genesis, and meaning of all the handiwork of man made use of in 

 the discussion is completed, the discussion of man and culture is 

 worse than useless, and speculation can lead but to embarrassment 

 and disaster. 



The geologic aspects of the case are hardly more satisfactory 

 than are the anthropologic. In the discussion of the early history 

 and chronology of man and his arts geology must play a prominent 

 part. Two questions, for whose answers we must appeal to this 

 science, are constantly arising, first, What is the age, or relative 

 age, of the formations concerned in human chronology ? and, 

 second, What is the exact nature of the association of w-orks of 

 art with these formations. It is readily seen from the nature of 

 these questions that they require expert answers, but persons 

 unskilled in geologic science cannot be expected to give expert 

 answers. Those persons who have turned their attention to these 

 studies have not, as a rule, been competent to determine the age 

 or relative age of the sedimentary deposits, and they were equally 

 incompetent to determine, in obscure cases, the exact relations of 

 associated works of art with these formations, although constantly 

 essaying to do so. I have for many years been engaged more or 

 less fully in geologic work, but so obscure are the phenomena of 

 the glacial and post-glacial formations, that I do not permit my- 

 self to make and use any observation in which these phenomena 

 are seriously involved without consulting one or more geologists 

 of the highest standing in that particular field. There are so 

 many chances for error in observation and so many pit-falls for 

 the unwary theorist, that it may well be questioned whether or 

 not the student of archasology not highly skilled in geologic sci- 



