SCIENCE 



NEW YORK, MAY 19, 1893. 



MR. HOLMES'S CRITICISM UPON THE EVIDENCE OF 

 GLACIAL MAN. 



ET G. FREDERICK WRIGHT, OBERLIN, OHIO. 



Me. Holmes has now concluded his series of reviews of the evi- 

 dence of glacial man in America, having treated of the evidence 

 from Trenton, N.J., and of that from Madisonville snd New- 

 comerstown, Ohio, in the first two numbers of The Journal of 

 Geology, published at Chicago, and of the Little Falls evidence, 

 in Minnesota, in the April number of Tlie American Geologist. 

 It is, therefore, an appropriate time to make some remarks upon 

 his criticisms. This I will do with as much fi-eedom from preju- 

 dice as possible, and I think I am in position to be as free from 

 bias as one can well be; for all along I have been in a strait 

 betwixt two, being under pressure from my theological predilec- 

 tions to discredit the evidence, and accepting it at first with much 

 misgiving. 



A calm review of the case in the light of Mr. Holmes's criticism 

 seems to make it probable that we have been mistaken about the 

 character of Miss Babbitt's discoveries at Little Falls. Mr. Holmes 

 seems fairly to establish the probability that the discoveries there 

 made were either in the surface deposits or in a talus of the bank 

 which had fallen down from the surface. But I will leave this 

 for further discussion by those who are more familiar with the 

 ground. 



In case of the discoveries at Trenton, N.J., however, his crit- 

 icisms fall far short of discrediting the abundant evidence that 

 had been presented by other investigators, and this I say with 

 what I believe to be pretty full knowledge of the facts and con- 

 ditions connected with the discoveries — knowledge which I have 

 derived from numerous personal investigations upon the spot and 

 from frequent conferences with persons who have from time to 

 time reported discoveries. But, as the discussion of this evidence 

 in detail will more properly fall to some others who have more 

 immediate cognizance of the facts, I will do nothing more here 

 than simply to express the convictions of my mind after repeatedly 

 reviewing the evidence on the spot since his criticisms. 



The last paper of Mr. Holmes, however, treats of the reported 

 discoveries in Ohio, whose discussion more properly falls upon 

 me. The two discoveries upon which most reliance has been 

 made in Ohio are that by Dr. Metz, at Madisonville, in the glacial 

 terrace of the Little Miami River, and that of Mr. Mills, at New- 

 comerstown, in the glacial terrace of the Tuscarawas. Mr. Holmes 

 urges two objections to the glacial age of the implement discov- 

 ered by Dr. Metz at Madisonville, and with him I understand Mr. 

 Leverett to agree. The implement was found some distance back 

 from the margin of the terrace, where the material was finer 

 than that facing the river, and occurred tight feet below the 

 surface of the loam, in the upper part of the gravel. Mr. Leverett 

 suggests that this loam may have been deposited later than the 

 main part of the terrace. I do not, however, understand him to 

 have any direct evidence of this, but simply to suggest it as a 

 possibility. I am confident, however, that it is nothing more 

 than a bare possibility, and that any separation of that portion of 

 the terrace from that nearer the river is in the highest degree 

 improbable. The glacial terrace is continuous from the river to 

 Dr. Metz's house, and, according to the laws of the formation of 

 such terraces, the finer material would be deposited back from 

 the main stream in exactly the manner in which it is deposited 

 there. We may therefore reject that supposition with a. very 

 great degree of confidence. 



Second, Mi-. Holmes and Mr. Leverett .suggest that this im- 



plement may have worked down eight feet through the loam and 

 into the gravel by the agency of upturned trees, or of the rotting 

 tap-roots of oak trees. Professor Chamberlin has suggested to 

 Mr. Leverett that probably fifty generations of trees had grown 

 upon this spot. But it is difficult to see how the number of the 

 generations of trees growing upon the spot would materially 

 affect the question. The most that Mr. Holmes claimed in refer- 

 ence to the Little Falls locality was that implements might have 

 worked down by the upturning of trees three or four feet into 

 the surface soil. But Htty disturbances of the soil to a depth of 

 three or four feet would not have the effect of one disturbance of 

 eight feet. To go half-way fifty times does not produce the effect 

 of going the whole of the way once. The supposition of the im- 

 plement's having worked down through a tap-root as it decayed 

 seems to rest upon so slight a probability that it is scarcely 

 worthy of consideration. The necessity of resorting to such 

 hypotheses to explain away each item of proof in detail will im- 

 press most reasonable minds with the extreme difficulty of resist- 

 ing the evidence presented in favor of glacial man in America. 



With reference to the Newcomerstown implement, there can 

 really be no better answer to Mr. Holmes's criticisms than to re- 

 produce, with a few critical remarks, two paragraphs in which 

 he unconsciously reveals the attitude of mind with which he has 

 approached the question. The paragraphs are taken from his 

 article in the second number of T7ie Journal of Geology, pp. 158- 

 159, in the midst of which there are injected two beautiful fancy 

 sketches, illustrating how he supposed the banks might have 

 appeared when the implement was discovered. Here are the par- 

 agraphs: — 



" Professor Wright is entirely satisfied with the results of bis 

 efforts to corroborate the statements of the collector. He has 

 examined and re-examined Mr. Mills, receiving every assurance 

 of the verity of the find, but, after all, he really secures no addi- 

 tional assurance and can receive no fully satisfactory assurance that 

 Mr. Mills was not in error. Professor Wright has visited and photo- 

 graphed the site, and will speedily prepare a plate for publication, 

 for just what purpose, however, it is rather hard to see, since the 

 nature of the gravels is not disputed, and a volume of photographs 

 will not give additional weight to the proofs. A photograph 

 made of the tree after the bird has flown will not help in deter- 

 mining the bird. No more will observations on Mr. Mills's moral 

 character, his education, or business reputation diminish the danger 

 of error. The specimen may not have been found in place, not- 

 withstanding all possible verification, and it may be a reject, 

 notwithstanding its resemblance to foreign types, and Professor 

 Wright may be wrong in urging his conclusions upon the public, 

 notwithstanding his painstaking efforts to secure all possible 

 aflBrmative testimony. 



" It is nowhere stated that Mr. Mills actually picked the speci- 

 men out of the gravels ; it was probably loose when he discovered 

 it, but, even if he could say that it was fixed in the gravel mass, 

 the necessity of questioning the find would still exist. All the 

 authentication Professor Wright can possibly secure will not 

 enable him to determine whether Mr. Mills struck with his walk- 

 ing-stick a small mass of the gravel in place at a depth of sixteen 

 feet, or whether he was dealing with a mass which had slid with 

 its inclusions of modern relics fiom the surface to a depth of six- 

 teen feet." 



In a former communication to Science (Feb. 3, 1893), I had 

 promised to publish a more detailed account of this discovery, 

 accompanied with a photograph of the bank. It is to this that 

 Mr. Holmes refers. The promised publication appeared in the 

 Popular Science Monthly for May, simultaneously with the article 

 by Mr. Holmes in The Journal of Geology. Doubtless it will 

 strike the reading public rather strangely to have Mr. Holmes 



