Tests Applied to Archaeological Relics. — Peet. 45 
another, yet on comparing the two it seemed to be impossible to 
draw the dividing line. We always found that whenever the inquiry 
was pressed, and the archaeologists of that school were asked to 
give us tests by which we could classify the relics, we were re- 
ferred to the " general appearance " and no definite test was given. 
The patina on the paleolithics was, to be sure, at times pointed 
out, especially if there was a black look to the patina, as this was 
supposed to be a sure indication of age, but the shapes were never 
definitely described ; in fact the shape of the paleolithics. so 
called, especially those from France, could always be duplicated 
from the neolithics in America, the chelleen axes having their 
counterparts in the Tennessee relics, and the mousterien scrapers 
and spear-points finding their correlatives in the relies taken from 
the ash-pits of the Madison ville cemetery in Ohio, the solutreen. 
leaf-shaped implements having their correlatives in relics picked 
up on the shores of the lakes of Wisconsin, and the banks of the 
rivers in all parts of the country, and the madelenien harpoon- 
having their correlatives among the implements so common in the 
northwest coast. This marked resemblance between the relics of 
the two continents might be explained, and was hypothetical! v 
explained, by the supposition of a rise and decline in the stone 
age, but this was not satisfactory. The later Indians were really 
in the paleolithic stage, and the earlier mound-builders in tin- 
neolithic. At length the subject had become so embarassing that 
there was a necessity in the case. This necessity was met by 
abandoning the point. The distinction between the paleolithics 
and the neolithics cannot be drawn by any hard and fast line. 
We have not, at least, in America, the marks of age in the relics 
which will enable us to class the two separately. We are in 
reality thrown over into the province of geology: if we "are i<. 
ascertain what relics belong to the paleolithic and what to the 
neolithic we must first determine their geological horizon, iliis 
being the only criterion by which we can yet judge of their age. 
This is the position which the writer has held for a Ion u time. 
The only question which he would now ask of the geologists aside 
from those points which they are best qualified to speak about is 
this : Are we alwa}'s sure thai a relic which seemed to have been 
chipped by human hands is in reality a paleolithic relic, even if 
it is in the so-called paleolithic horizon ? May not these apparent 
chippings be the result of accidental fractures, coming from 
