March io, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



135 



of the average student" any method is dangerous. In view of 

 Professor Hathaway's illustration, I do not feel called upon yet to 

 "revise my eulogy on intimtesimals." E. A. BowsER. 



Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J., Mar. 9, 



A Question of Evidence. 



In a recent number of Science I ventured to express the hope 

 that a nevp era vcas dawning in American archseologic science, 

 and that the department of geologic archseology especially 

 would experience a needed renaissance. T laid particular stress 

 upon the deceptive and meagre nature of the evidence already 

 on record and ventured to point out the demands of the 

 future with respect to certain lines of research. Some of my 

 statements relating to the character of the evidence have given 

 rise to sharp comment on the part of defenders of the paleolithic 

 theory. I strongly deprecate personalities in scientific discussion 

 and hesitate to refer in a critical \v»j to the legitimate work of 

 other investigators, desiring to restrict ra>self to such criticism as 

 is absolutely necessary for sifting the evidence and getting at the 

 truth; but the generalized statements by means of which I at- 

 tempted to describe the old archaeology are not sufficiently tren- 

 chant to he etfective; more definite and detailed characterization 

 mustjitseeius.be given. This can best be accomplished by means of 

 illustrations drawn from the writings of those defenders of the 

 faith who make most vociferous claim to superiority of knowl- 

 edge and profundity of research. Numerous illustrations are at 

 hand, but I will refer only to the work of those vvho have unfairly 

 reviewed or offensively referred to the positions taken by me. 

 Attention has been called in Professor Wright's work, "The Ice 

 Age," to a number of papers bearing on the paleolithic question, 

 written by Mr. H. W. Haynes of Boston. In these papers, twelve 

 in number, I have carefully sought references to original observa- 

 tions on the glacial archaeology of this country, and find to my 

 surprise that they are limited to two lines and a quarter of text. 

 These lines include, also, reference to the discoveries of Professor 

 Wright, Dr. Abbott, and two others present on the occasion. The 

 record reads as follows: ■' Several implements were taken by the 

 others, either from the gravel, or the talus on the river bank, in 

 my presence, and I found five myself." ' The italics are my own, 

 and call attention to essential features of the finds and to the fact 

 that Mr. Haynes's investigations are expressed in five words — 

 quite sufficient no doubt for the presentation of the matter, since 

 the articles found were probably all modern pieces from the talus. 

 Now, any one could find these objects in the talus at that day, and 

 no one now attaches any value to such finds save three or four 

 advocates of the paleolitliic theory in America who hesitate to 

 acknowledge, or fail to see the shortcomings, of their early work. 

 The chances are a hundred to one that all talus finds and all the 

 finds made by Mr. Haynes are Indian shop-rejects left by native 

 workmen who utilized the argillite bowlders and masses that out- 

 cropped in the face of the bhifl. But whether they were from 

 the talus or not, I would call attention to the fact that the lan- 

 guage used by Mr. Haynes in describing the discoveries indicates 

 practical " ignorance" of the only essential points of the discus- 

 sion of fossil man. In the first place had he known that the 

 things he picked up "either from the gravel or the talus," as he 

 states it, correspond exactly with the ordinary modern quarry 

 and shop-rejects of the Trenton region, he would certainly not 

 have ventured to class them with European paleolithic imple- 

 ments and to build a monument to American antiquity and to 

 himself upon them; and, in the second place, had he known that 

 the only legitimate proof of the antiquitj' of sucli specimens in 

 America is geologic proof, he would not have failed to properly 

 discriminate between those articles obtained from the gravels in 

 place — if there were such — and those obtained from the talus. 

 From his language it is evident that at that time he had no com- 

 prehension of the real problems involved, and could not have ap- 

 preciated the necessity of the discriminating observation now con- 

 sidered essential by scientific men ; consequently, his observations 

 made in archseologic obscurity and geologic darkness amount to 

 naught, and no subsequent patching-up can redeem them. 



1 Haynes, H. W. Proo. Boston Soo. Nat. Hist. Vol. XXI., p. 132. 



Professor Wright, who is vigorously championed by Mr. Haynes, 

 does not claim to have found any relic of art in the gravels, and 

 hence probably knows nothing, from his own observation, favoring 

 the glacial age of man in America, and I was led, in a review of' 

 portions of his published work, to question his judgment in writing 

 so much on the finds of others, and accepting all statements that 

 came to hand without apparent attempt at discrimination. Mr. 

 Haynes has been more successful in his finds, having added five 

 unverified turtlebacks to the long list of "paleolithic" strays. 

 He may not have broken Professor Wright's i-ecord in number of 

 papers published, but he has been less discriminating in the use of 

 unsound data. Having little knowledge ot native art and less of 

 geology, he has rarely touched the subject of glacial man without 

 adding to its obscurity. His most pronounced shortcoming is, 

 however, in the line of original research: when the three lines 

 recording his complete achievements in the American field are 

 cut down to five words, as quoted above, and these words reduced 

 to their real bearing upon the question of glacial man in America, 

 we have only the punctuation left! It would be difficult to find 

 within the wliole range of scientific writing three lines containing 

 less of science or evincing a greater degree of incompetence to 

 treat of the subject discussed, than these. 



Another example of " that half wisdom half experience gives" 

 may be cited. In a recent publication, Mr. Haynes avers that I 

 have rashly and wrongly charactei'ized the work of other investi- 

 gators; yet a hurried glance into his part of that work convinces 

 me not only that 1 shall be acquitted of this charge, but that I 

 may now safely venture farther. I am constrained, therefore, to 

 suggest that perhaps Mr. Haynes's investigations of paleolithic 

 man in Egypt — in the only field in which he can possibly lay 

 claim to having added a single new fact of importance to the data 

 of archseologic science — will not require more than five words 

 for their proper record. A brief summary of these researches 

 may be given. 



Scattered over the surface of the ground in the valley of the 

 Nile he found several implements of supposed St. Acheul type 

 and numerous examples of other flaked objects of ordinary and 

 extraordinary shapes. We learn, however, in his own words, 

 that " Quaternary deposits do not occur in the Nile valley, so far 

 as I am aware, though they have been found in various parts of 

 the Sahara." " 



The " implements" of St. Acheul type are assumed to be paleo- 

 lithic because of their looks. This is the "evidence " of the ordi- 

 nary paleolith hunter, and it does not appear of the least conse- 

 quence to him that the quaternary deposits which alone could 

 furnish the only real element of proof of antiquity — the geologic 

 element — are not found in the Nile valley at all, but are said to 

 exist somewhere in Sahara. These enormous leaps from meagre 

 data to full-blown conclusions are characteristic of the past archse- 

 ology, and awaken feelings of amazement in the minds of practi- 

 cal students to-day. Even if analogies of form in implements are 

 allowed to have a definite value in cultural or chronologic correla- 

 tions in Europe and adjoining lands, it must be insisted that in 

 America, until types of flaked objects other than those found 

 commonly in Indian shop refuse heaps are established, the test of 

 antiquity shall be a geologic test. 



The two illustrations given serve to indicate my reasons for 

 raising the question of competency with respect to the evidence 

 relied upon to establish a paleolithic glacial man in America. 

 Observations of the class cited, howsoever greatly multiplied, can 

 never amount to proof, demonstrating rather the lack of it. My 

 position with respect to this point need not be misunderstood: 

 when a single artificial object is found that can be fully and 

 satisfactorily verified geologically, I shall gladly join hands with 

 other students in making it a nucleus about which to arrange all 

 that are clearly fellows with it. Then, and not till then, will 

 uncertainty become certainty, and not till then can the question 

 of the grade of glacial art be taken up and profitably studied. I 

 only ask that the evidence relating to glacial man be properly 

 scrutinized, and that meanwhile paleolithic man in America shall 

 bide his time. 



" Haynes, H. W. " The Fossil Man," Popular Science Monthly, VoL XVII., 

 p. 358. 



