Man iiixi the (iliwial PcrioiL- — SallHlniry. 19 , 
In two jiliiccs oiir ;iiit lior iiuiki's cl.-iiiiit* u liicli we I liiiik iiro. not jus- 
tified. Tlic stiitciiKMil ( ji. 'IVD thai ■'(liii-iiiy tlic simimcr of 1882,1 
•discoveivd tlic existfiicc ol' nnniistiikahlo ffliicial (lej)osits in Boone 
"County" ( Ky. ». s(-('nis liardly consistent witli tiie enrlier ])ul)iished 
descriptions of the lloone coimty (iril't l)y Messrs. Sutton and \\'Hrder. 
From these authors. I'rof. W'riylit liinisell' (pioted in 1SS4. Again 
(p. (i2).<)ur iuitlior says, ''1 liave t raced 1 liis limit of soutiiern bowlders 
for tliousands of miles across the continent, according to the delinea- 
tion whicli nuiy t)e seen in tiie map in a hiter cliapler," Tins is cer- 
tainly an unscientific exaii'geral ion. 
If we t urn Id 1 he ant li ropoiot^'ii-a I oi' a re h;i oh ><;ica I side of 1 he hook, 
we find tlu' discussion very iirief, so far as glacial man in .Vmerit^ais 
concerned; i)roper!y so, since the evidence does not appear to be 
voluminous. Our author's conclusion is, that paleolithic man existed 
in America durinfj the glacial epoch. It is not represented that this 
<'(mclusioii is (piestioned, or that it is open to (|uestion. The evidence 
is regarded as sutlicient. Kven if this conclusion seems to the author 
warranted, it would luive been but just to his readers and to archa-oi- 
•ogists, who hold dilferent \ lews, had tlie author stated that tliere is a 
growing feeling that t he evidence of glacial man is not bi\vond ques- 
tion. So far as America is concerned, tlie (^'idence of '"paleolithic" 
man, glacial, |)re-glacial, or |)ost-gla<'ial, is now looked u|)on by many 
as extremely susjMcious in cjuiracter. as well as meagre in quantity. 
With reference to the "paleolithic implements" which are thought; 
to ])rove the existence of glacial man, two or three troublesome (|ues- 
tions have been raised, none of winch Prof. ^^' rigid considers. \m- 
plements and woi'ks of art may be introduced into gravel by various 
processes, after the gravels themselves have bt'.eii hud <h)vvn. Were 
the "paleolithic implemeids" so introduced? This is a geological, nut. 
an archaeological (|uestioii. Kxperl geological testimony that the 
■'"implements" are so associated with the gravel as to i)rove that they 
were introduced into it during its deposition in glacial times, is not 
forthconung. If they were introduced later, the sup])ose(l [)roof of 
glacial nuui is gone. 
So far as this line of c\ idcnce is concerned, rec(Mit investigation 
seems to indieati' conclusively that the "im[)lem<'nts" of another lo- 
cality cited by our autlior. were introduced into the glacial gravel in 
post-glacial times. Perhaps the same nniy have been true at Trenton. 
There is a growing <'onviction that such may have be(Mi the case. Jt. 
is not regarded as certain, therefore, that the ""implenu^nts" at Tren- 
ton, are of glacial age. In the second jilace there is a question as to 
whether they are "implements" at all. .\nd yet again, it is <U>ubt.ed 
whether they are "j)aleolithic." As the matter now stands the Dela- 
ware valley "imj)lements" therefore, cainiot be said to prove the ex- 
istence of glacial man, or even of "'paleolithic" man. The case is no 
better if we turn to the other localities cited. Of these Jiewer ques- 
tionings and conclusions we liiid nothing. On this point the author 
has not fulfilled his pur|>ose of giving the general public "a clear 
