Haynes.] 
390 
[February 1. 
extremely simple types of instrument can be accounted for as 
having been “ produced by purely natural agencies.” These gentle- 
men, it must be remembered, speak in a strictly professional char- 
acter, and lay no claim to any special knowledge in archaeology. 
Mr. Raphael Pumpelly writes : “ In reply to your letter asking 
an expression of opinion from me, concerning the artificial char- 
acter of certain implements found by Mr. Haynes in New Eng- 
land, I would say that, in going through the collection, I found 
a considerable number from different localities, the fractures on 
which, in my opinion, could not have resulted from natural causes. 
There were others of which I could not be positive, and a con- 
siderable number of the rest might, in my opinion, have been 
natural. 
Not being an archaeologist, I can, of course, have no opinion 
as to when or how the artificial fractures were formed ; but artifi- 
cial, and of some considerable antiquity, they undoubtedly appear 
to me.” 
Dr. M. E. Wadsworth says : “In replying to the question: 
‘Do you regard the specimens shown you by Professor Haynes as 
natural or artificial forms ? ’ I would make the following answer : 
In my opinion these specimens fall into three classes. 
1st. Those forms that appear to be purely natural. 
2nd. Natural forms, which have apparently received, directly 
or indirectly, one or more blows through man’s agency. 
3d. Those that have apparently been worked upon for the 
purpose of fashioning some instrument. 
In the last division I should place, of the entire number shown 
me, but comparatively few. The second division was somewhat 
larger than the third, as it seeihs to me. Some of the fractures 
appeared to be quite recent, while others showed a greater but 
indefinite age.” 
Prof. N. S. Shaler, who saw only the objects discovered at 
Lisbon, N. H. in 1880, expressed substantially the same opinion 
as these gentlemen. 
