In a paper published in _Science_, Nov. 25. 1892, I undertook to study
the evidence relating to paleolithic man in the eastern United States
from a new point of view,--that furnished by certain recently acquired
knowledge of the contents of quarries and shops where modern aboriginal
flaked implements were made. It was shown that all rudely flaked forms
could be sufficiently accounted for without the necessity of assuming
a very rude state of culture, and that any people, paleolithic or
neolithic, would in roughing out blades--the principal product of the
flaking process--produce precisely these forms and in great numbers
as refuse. It further appeared that the finding of these objects in
sporadic cases in glacial gravels or in any formation whatsoever, could
not be considered as proving or tending to establish the existence of
a particular grade of stone-age culture for the region in which the
formation occurs, since they may as readily pertain to a neolithic
as to a paleolithic status. It was conclusively shown that no worked
stone that can with reasonable safety be called an implement has been
reported from the gravels, and that it is therefore clearly useless,
not to say unscientific, to go on enlarging upon the evidence of an
American paleolithic period and multiplying theoretic details of its
culture.
I now propose to review briefly the question of the age of our
so-called paleolithic implements, the questions of the _grade_ of
a given feature of culture and of the _age_ or chronologic place
of that culture being very properly treated separately, as they
depend for their support upon distinct classes of evidence. During
the past summer, 1892, certain important items of new evidence have
been discovered bearing upon the question of the occurrence or
non-occurrence of rudely flaked stones or of any artificial objects
whatsoever in the normal gravels of the Delaware Valley, and it
therefore becomes necessary to examine somewhat critically such of the
published evidence as seems to be seriously affected by these recent
observations.
It may be stated in beginning that no one disputes the glacial age of
the Trenton gravels. The question to be discussed is simply this,--is
the evidence satisfactory that works of art have been found in these
gravels? Nothing else need be asked or answered. I do not take up
this subject because I love controversy; disputation is really most
distasteful to me. It happens that under the Bureau of Ethnology of the
Smithsonian Institution I have been assigned to the work of making a
survey of the archeology of the Atlantic coast region in which large
areas, especially in states south of Mason and Dixon's line, remained
almost untouched by investigators, and two years have been consumed
mainly in these southern areas. But there are questions that refuse
to be confined to definite geographic limits, and evidence secured in
one section is sometimes found to bear so directly and forcibly upon
problems pertaining primarily to other sections that the student of
these problems must perforce become a free lance, and unhesitatingly
enter any province promising results of value, howsoever fully occupied
it may be by other investigators. One of the most interesting and
important questions growing out of the study of American archeology
has, as we have seen, arisen in the Delaware Valley, and the turn taken
by some of my work in the south and west is such that I cannot pass
this question by without consideration. The necessity of taking up
the subject of glacial man became more and more apparent as the years
passed on, and people continued to say to me, "You must go to Trenton;
we are not satisfied with the present status of the question there; the
evidence arrayed in favor of the theory of a paleolithic gravel man
needs critical examination."
The difficulty of taking up and re-examining evidence, of which the
record only remains, is, however, very great, since in most cases
the evidence rests upon or consists of field observations, and these
cannot be recalled or repeated, and there is absolutely no means of
testing directly the value of what is recorded. One may seek either to
verify or to discredit the promulgated theories, but years of search
may fail to produce a single new item of evidence bearing decisively
upon the subject. It is possible that at one period numerous finds of
implements should be reported from certain portions of the gravels,
and that afterwards the whole remaining body of these formations
should be worked over and searched without securing a trace of art;
yet this latter evidence, being negative, need not necessarily be
considered sufficient to overturn the original positive evidence if
that happens to be of a high class. There is not the least doubt,
however, that positive evidence may be so impaired by various defects
and inconsistencies, that, unsupported by renewed and well verified
observations, it will finally yield to the negative forces; and if
the theories of a gravel man in the eastern United States, howsoever
fortified by accumulated observations, are not really properly
supported in every way, they are bound in time to fall to the ground.
All I can reasonably hope to do now is to have the evidence relating to
glacial man placed on trial, and so fully examined and cross-examined
that those who accept gravel man need not longer do so blindly without
knowing that there are two sides to the question, and those who do not
accept him may know something of the reasons for the belief that is in
them.
The evidence employed to prove the presence of a race of men in
the Delaware Valley in glacial times is confined almost wholly to
the alleged discovery of rude implements in the glacial gravels.
Practically all the evidence has been collected by Dr. C. C. Abbott,
and upon his skill as an observer, his faithfulness as a recorder,
his correctness of judgment and his integrity of character, the whole
matter stands. Many visitors, men of high repute in archeology and
geology, have visited the site, but the observations made on such
occasions appear not to have been of a nature to be of great value in
evidence, the finds being doubtful works of art or not having properly
established relationships with the gravels in place. In the discussion
of gravel man in eastern America a wide range of objects and phenomena
has been considered, but the real evidence, upon which the theory of
an ancient race and a peculiar culture must depend, is furnished by a
hundred pieces--more or less--of rudely flaked stones said to have come
from the gravels in place. And now what can be said with reference to
this series of flaked stones further than that they are reported by the
collector to have been found in the gravels at definite stated depths?
I have elsewhere shown that they are not demonstrably implements
in any case, that they are identical in every respect with the
quarry-shop rejects of the American Indian, that they do not closely
resemble any one of the well established types of European paleolithic
implements, and that they are not a sufficient index of a particular
stage of culture. I shall now present such reasons as there may be
for the belief, held by many, that they were not really found in the
undisturbed glacial gravels.
It is generally understood that the earliest reported gravel finds of
importance were made on the banks of Assanpink creek within the city
limits of Trenton, where the gravels to a thickness of twenty feet or
more were exposed in a railway cutting. Later the river bluff near the
lower end of the city, where the gravels were exposed to a depth of
from twenty-five to forty feet, yielded large numbers. These two sites,
so far as I can learn, furnished at least three-fourths of the finds in
place. Other specimens were found singly in slight natural exposures,
and in excavations for cellars, sewers, etc., at various points within
the city limits.
The river bluff was for a considerable period the favorite hunting
ground of the searchers for rudely flaked stones, and many specimens
were collected. The gravels were exposed in a steep, nearly straight
bank, several hundred yards in length, the base of which was washed by
the river. There can be no question that Dr. Abbott and others have
found shaped objects of various classes upon and in the face of this
river bluff, and the visitor to-day, although the bluff is now buried
almost completely under city refuse, will hardly fail to find some
rudely flaked form in the deeper gullies or upon the narrow river bank
or beach at the base. Dr. Abbott explicitly states[1] that he obtained
certain of these specimens from the gravel outcrops, and that they were
not in talus formations, but in undisturbed deposits. How then is it
possible to do otherwise than accept these statements as satisfactory
and final?
[1] Abbott, C. C. Primitive Industry, pp. 493-510.
[Illustration: =Fig. 1.= Sketch map of the Trenton bluff, showing the
relation of the sewer trench to the "implement" yielding slope.... a-b
section line, =Fig. 2=.]
Very recently, however, fortunate circumstances have brought the
evidence furnished by this site again within our reach, thus enabling
us to re-open the discussion under favorable conditions. What I had
for some time desired to do in this case was, what I had already done
at Piny Branch, D. C., and at Little Falls, Minn., to open a trench
into the face of the bluff, and thus secure evidence for or against
the theory of a gravel man. This measure was, however, rendered
impracticable by the occupation of the bluff margin by a city street;
but it happened last summer that the city authorities, desiring to
improve the sanitary condition of the city, decided to open a great
sewer through this very bluff to get a lower outlet to the river. A
trench twelve feet wide and some thirty feet deep, the full depth
of the exposed gravels, was carried along the bluff just inside of
its margin, opening out into the river at the point where the bluff
turns toward the north-east. It was a trenching more complete and more
satisfactory than any of which I had ever dreamed. At no point for the
entire length of the bluff did the excavation depart more than forty
feet from the line of the terrace face--from the upper margin of the
slope upon which such plentiful evidence of a supposed gravel man had
been obtained. The accompanying map and section, Figs. 1 and 2, will
indicate the location of the trench, and show the exact relations of
the natural and artificial exposures of the gravels.
[Illustration: =Fig. 2.= Sections made by the river and by the sewer,
the former yielding many "implements," the latter yielding none.]
I made several visits to the place, descended frequently into the great
cut and examined the gravels and their contents with the utmost care,
but without securing a trace of art. Recognizing the vital importance
of utilizing to the fullest extent this opportunity of testing the
art-bearing nature of the gravels at this point, I resolved to
undertake a systematic study of the subject. Summoning my assistant,
Mr. William Dinwiddie, from his field of operations in the South, I had
him spend upwards of a month at the great trench, faithfully watching
the gravels as they were exposed. Mr. Dinwiddie had worked three years
under my personal direction, and had helped open upwards of twenty
trenches through similar gravel deposits, and was therefore well
qualified for the work. Prof. W. J. McGee, Prof. R. D. Salisbury, Dr.
Stewart Culin and Dr. Abbott also visited the place one or more times
each. Relics of art were found upon the surface and in such portions of
the talus as happened to be exposed, but nothing whatever was found in
the gravels in place, and the search was closed when it became fully
apparent that the case was hopeless.
It may be claimed that the conditions under which gravels are exposed
in trenching as it progresses, are not as favorable for the collection
of enclosed relics as where exposed by natural processes of weathering.
This is true in a certain measure, as specimens may be obscured by
the damp clinging sand which forms the matrix of the gravels. This,
however, would interfere but little with the discovery of large flaked
stones, such as we were led to expect in this place, and this slight
disadvantage in detecting shaped pieces in fresh exposures is more
than over-balanced by the treachery of weathered surfaces which often
give to intrusive objects the appearance of original inclusion. The
opportunity for studying the gravels in all their phases of bedding,
composition and contents, was really excellent, and no one could watch
the constantly renewed exposures hour after hour for a month without
forming a most decided notion as to the implement bearing qualities
of the formation. Not the trace of a flaked stone, or of a flake or
artificial fragment of any kind was found, and we closed the work
with the firm conviction that the gravels exposed by this trench were
absolutely barren of art. But Dr. Abbott claims to have found numerous
implements in the bluff face a few feet away and in the same gravels.
If this is true, the conditions of glacial occupation of this site
must have been indeed remarkable. It is implied that during the whole
period occupied by the melting of the ice sheet within the drainage of
the Delaware valley the hypothetical rude race lived on a particular
line or zone afterwards exposed by the river to the depth of 30 feet,
leaving his strange "tools" there by the hundreds, while another line
or zone, not more than forty feet away at most, exposed to the same
depth by an artificial trench, was so avoided by him that it does not
furnish the least memento of his presence. One vertical slice of the
gravels twelve feet thick does not yield even a broken stone, while
another slice not probably one-half as thick, cut obliquely through
the gravels near by, has furnished subject-matter for numerous books
and substantiation for a brace of theories. That no natural line of
demarcation between the two section lines is possible, is shown by
the fact that the formations are continuous, and that the deposits
indicate a constant shifting of lines and areas of accumulation;
thus it was impossible for any race to dwell continuously upon any
spot, line or plane. This is well shown in the section, Fig. 3, which
gives the relations of the art-producing section of Dr. Abbott to the
non-art-producing section of the sewer. The gravels were laid down
entirely irrespective of subsequent cutting, natural or artificial;
yet we are expected to believe that a so-called gravel man could have
resorted for a thousand years to the space _a_, leaving his half
shaped or incipient tools at all stages of the gravel building from
base to top, failing entirely to visit a neighboring space _b_, or to
leave there a single flake to reward the most faithful search. It is
much easier to believe that one man should err than that a guileless
race should thus conspire with a heartless nature to accomplish such
extraordinary results. The easier explanation of the whole matter is
that the objects found by Dr. Abbott were not really in the gravels,
but that they are Indian shop-refuse settled into the old talus
deposits of the bluff, and that his eager eyes, blinded by a prevailing
belief in a paleolithic man for all the world alike, failed to observe
with their wonted keenness and power.
[Illustration: =Fig. 3.= _a_, Reputed "implement" producing zone of the
river front. _b_, Barren zone of sewer.]
But this case does not stand alone. The first discoveries of supposed
gravel implements are said to have been made when the Pennsylvania
Railway opened a road bed through the creek terrace on the site of the
present station. At first numerous specimens of rudely flaked stones
were reported, and the locality became widely known to archeologists,
but the implement bearing portions of the gravels--and this is a most
significant fact--were limited in extent, and the deposit was soon
completely removed, the horizontal extension containing nothing. At
present there are excellent exposures of the full thickness of the
gravels at this point, but the most diligent search is vain, the only
result of days of examination being a deep conviction that these
gravels are and always were wholly barren of art.
It thus appears that here as well as upon the river front, the works
of art were confined to local deposits, limited horizontally but not
vertically, and a strong presumption is created that the finds were
confined to redistributed gravels settled upon the terrace face in the
form of talus. Dr. Abbott states that "at that point where I gathered
the majority of specimens there is a want of stratification."[2] It
is well known that such rearranged deposits are often difficult to
distinguish from the original gravels. In trenching an implement
producing terrace at Washington--where the conditions were probably
quite similar to those at the Trenton railroad station--I passed
through eighty feet of redistributed talus gravels before encountering
the gravels in place, and so deceptively were portions of these
deposits re-set that experts in gravel phenomena were unable to decide
whether they were or were not portions of the original formation
(cretaceous). The question was finally settled by the discovery of
artificially shaped stones in and beneath the deposits.
[2] Abbott, C. C. 10th Annual Report of the Peabody Museum, p. 41.
Again, an implement bearing deposit of gravel was recently discovered
by the late Miss F. E. Babbitt at Little Falls, Minnesota, and
sufficient (a very little) digging was done to satisfy the discoverer,
and all paleolithic archeologists as well, that the objects were really
imbedded in the glacial gravels. In the summer of 1892 I visited the
place and carried a trench twenty feet horizontally into the terrace
face on the "implement bed" level before encountering the gravels in
place. The talus deposits were several feet thick, and were of such
a nature that their true character could not be determined without
careful and extensive trenching. The whole talus deposit was here
well stocked with Indian quartz quarry-shop rejects, which were as
usual of paleolithic types, and it was but natural that Miss Babbitt's
conclusions, although based as they necessarily were upon inexpert
observations, backed by such well known "types" of "implements" should
be unhesitatingly accepted by believers.
The occurrence of these telling examples of the deceptive appearance
of re-set gravels would seem to justify and emphasize the conviction
created by a critical examination of the two leading so-called
paleolithic sites at Trenton, that Dr. Abbott, notwithstanding his
asseverations to the contrary, has been deceived. Very strong support,
it seems to me, is given to this conclusion by the recently published
opinion of the late Dr. H. Carvill Lewis, a glacialist familiar
with the Trenton region, and with the work of Dr. Abbott at the
period of his paleolithic castle building. Dr. Lewis is reported to
have maintained before an open meeting of the Academy of Science in
Philadelphia "that what Dr. Abbott believed to be undisturbed layers
(of gravel) were those of an ancient talus."[3] This remark may refer
to both the main sites--the one at the railroad station and the other
at the river front--or possibly only to the former. I have also heard
it stated that that eminent scholar, Dr. Leidy, who must have had ample
opportunities of forming correct opinions upon the subject, held pretty
much the same views of Dr. Abbott's finds.
[3] Brinton, D. G., Science, Oct. 28, p. 249.
[Illustration: =Fig. 4.= A freshly formed gravel bluff.]
[Illustration: =Fig. 5.= Early stage of talus formation.]
[Illustration: =Fig. 6.= An ancient talus.]
To make the above criticism entirely clear, a few words of explanation
of talus phenomena may be added. As a river cuts its channel deeper
and deeper into deposits of gravel a section is gradually exposed, but
the gravels break down readily under atmospheric influences and the
exposed face does not retain a high angle. The upper part crumbles and
descends toward the base, there to rest against the slope or to be
carried away by the stream. A supposititious case will be convenient
for illustration. A gravel terrace twenty feet in height is encroached
upon by the river at high water and undermined, and the face breaks
down vertically, leaving an exposure as illustrated in Fig. 4. In a
very short time the upper portions become loosened and fall below,
giving a steep slope as seen in Fig. 5. The process goes on with
gradually decreasing rapidity, and if the river does not again encroach
seriously, a practically stable slope is reached, as shown in Fig.
6. Such a talus may be hundreds or even thousands of years old, but
there is rarely any means of determining its exact age. If the gravels
are homogeneous in character, the talus will simulate their normal
condition so completely that the distinction cannot be made out in
ordinary gullies or by unsystematic digging. If the gravels contain
varied strata the talus will be composite, and will be more readily
distinguished from at least portions of the material in place.
Now it is important to observe what may be the possible art contents
of such a talus as that shown in Fig. 6. It may contain all objects
of art originally included in that portion of the gravels represented
by _a_, _b_, _c_, together with all articles that happened to be upon
the surface _b_, _c_, beside such objects as may have accumulated from
dwelling or shop work upon its own surface, after the slope became
sufficiently reduced to be occupied for these purposes. A talus is
therefore liable to contain, and in the utmost confusion, relics of all
periods of occupation, supposing always that there were such periods,
from the beginning of the formation of the gravel deposits down to the
present moment. As a rule such a talus, if art-containing, will have a
large percentage of shop and quarry-shop refuse, for the reason that
the exposed gravels, and the banks and beds of rivers cutting them,
furnish, as a rule, a good deal of the raw material utilized by workers
in stone, and the shops in which the work was done are usually located
upon the slopes and outer margins of the terraces. Although there is
the possibility of very considerable age for these talus deposits,
it is unlikely that any of them date back as far as the close of the
glacial epoch or at all near it, for rivers change back and forth
constantly, undermining first one bank and then the other, so that a
very large percentage of our talus deposits have been formed well
within the historic period.
At Trenton the constantly exposed gravel banks afforded considerable
argillite in bowlders, fragments and heavy masses, as well as some
other flakable stones of inferior quality little used, and it is
inevitable that the Indian who dwelt upon the shores of the river
should have sought the workable pieces along the bluff, leaving the
refuse everywhere; and it is a necessary consequence that the terrace
margin, the bluff face, and the talus deposits, places little fitted
for habitation, should for long distances contain no trace of any
art shapes save such as pertain to manufacture. Thus are fully and
satisfactorily accounted for all the turtle backs and other rude
forms that our paleolith hunters have been so assiduously gathering.
Nothing can be more fully apparent than that no other race than the
Indian in his historic character and condition need be conjured up to
reasonably account for every phase and every article of the recovered
art. Mistaken interpretations of the nature of shop rejects, and the
common association of these objects with redistributed gravels, are
probably accountable for the many misconceptions that have arisen.
Talus deposits form exceedingly treacherous records for the would-be
chronologist. They are the reef upon which more than one paleolithic
adventurer has been wrecked.
Relics of art attributed to gravel man have been collected, so far
as I can gather from museum labels and from incidental references in
various publications, from a number of sites aside from the two already
referred to. These are scattered over the city, and the finds were made
mostly in exposures of the gravels that remained visible for a short
time only, as in street and cellar excavations and well pits. These
reported finds can never be brought within the range of re-examination,
and the searcher after unimpeachable testimony must content himself
with placing them in the doubtful column on general principles.
Urban districts are so subject to disturbance through cutting down
of hills, filling in of depressions, grading of streets, digging of
foundations, cellars, sewers, wells and graves that no man can, from a
limited exposure such as those producing the reported tools necessarily
were, speak with certainty of the undisturbed nature of the deposits
penetrated. It is doubtful if any one is justified in publishing such
observations at all without serious query. Such testimony is liable
to fall of its own inherent weakness, being absolutely valueless if
unsupported by collateral evidence of real weight. It can only be made
permanently available to science by the discovery of something unusual
or unique with which to couple it, something decidedly un-Indian in
character or type, as for example the two skulls now in the Peabody
Museum. These objects and the antler knife-handle exhibited with them
may be alluded to as the only finds so far made at Trenton, having
of themselves the least potentiality as proof and these skulls and
this knife-handle must yet be subjected to the rigid examination made
necessary by the importance of the conclusions to be based upon them.
Something may now be said concerning the art remains upon which
this discussion hinges, and upon which conclusions of the greatest
importance to anthropology are supposed to depend. Let us pass over
all that has been said with regard to their manner of occurrence and
association with the gravels and ask them simply what story they tell
of themselves. Does this story, so far as we are able clearly to read
it, speak of a great antiquity and a peculiar culture, or does it hint
rather at vital weaknesses in the position taken by the advocates of
these ideas? We shall see. The history of the utilization of rudely
flaked stones in the attempt to establish a gravel man in America
has never been written, but as read between the lines of paleolithic
literature, it runs about as follows: The theory of a very rude and
ancient people, having a unique culture and certain peculiar art
limitations, was developed in Europe many years ago in a manner well
known and often rehearsed. This people was associated with the ice age
in Europe, and this epoch, with its moraines and till and sedimented
gravels, was found to have been repeated in America. It was the most
natural thing possible that these discoveries should carry with them
the suggestion that man may have existed here as in Europe during that
epoch, and that his culture was of closely corresponding grade. These
were legitimate inferences and warranted the instituting of careful
researches, but it was a dangerous suggestion to put into the minds of
enthusiastic novices with fertile brains and ready pens. The idea was
hardly transplanted to American soil before finds began to be made. The
so-called "types" of European paleoliths suggested the lines upon which
finds here should be made, and everything in the way of flaked stones
connected directly or indirectly with the glacial gravels which had not
yet been fully credited to and absorbed by the inconvenient Indian, was
seized upon as representing the ancient time and its hypothetic people
and culture. In the early days of the investigation the various rude
forms of flaked stones, resulting from failures in manufacture, had not
been studied, and were shrouded in convenient mystery, and they thus
became the foundation of the new archeologic dynasty in America, the
dynasty of the turtle-back. Dr. Abbott states in his first work[4] that
these rude "implements" are not especially characteristic of any one
locality, but seem to be scattered uniformly over the state. Specimens
of every type, he says, are "found upon the surface, and are plowed
up every spring and autumn; but this in no way militates against the
opinion that these ruder forms are far older than the well-chipped
jasper and beautifully-polished porphyry stone-work."[5] At that stage
of the investigation it was not at all necessary that a specimen should
come from the gravels in place or from any given depth, since the
"type" was supposed to be easily recognized and was a sufficient means
of settling the question of age.
[4] Abbott, C. C. The Stone Age in N. J., Sm. Rep. 1875, p. 247.
[5] Ibid, p. 252.
Rude "implements" were called for and they were found. The only
requirements were that they should not be of well-known Indian types,
that they should be rude and have some sort of resemblance to what
were known as paleolithic implements abroad. Since most of these
so-called gravel implements of Europe are also doubtless the rejects
of manufacture resemblances were readily found. The early attempts
to utilize these rejects in support of the theory, and make them
masquerade creditably as "implements" with specialized features and
self-evident adaptation to definite ice-age uses, now appear decidedly
amusing. Gradually, however, the lines have been drawn upon this early
license, and it is to-day well understood by all careful students, that
since the rude forms are so often repeated in modern neolithic refuse,
the only reliable test of a gravel "implement" is its occurrence in
the gravels in place. That a particular "implement," said to have been
obtained from the gravels, is of "paleolithic type," does not in the
least strengthen its claims to being a _bona fide_ gravel implement;
nor does its easy assignment to a "type" give any additional value to
the collector's claim that the gravels said to contain it are implement
bearing. The very names, "rude implement," "paleolithic implement,"
etc., carry with them a certain amount of mysterious suggestion; one
thinks of unique, significant shapes and of strange, archaic uses.
At their mere mention, the great ice sheet looms up with startling
realism, and the reindeer and the mighty mammoth appear upon the
scene. The reader of our paleolithic literature is led to feel that
these antiquated objects carry volumes of history in their worn and
weather-beaten faces, but this is all the figment of fertile brains.
These objects have without exception the appearance of the most
commonplace every-day rejects of manufacture without specialization and
without hidden meaning. They tell of themselves no story whatsoever,
save that of the oft-repeated failure of the aboriginal blade maker in
his struggle with refractory stones. This will be shown with greater
clearness farther on.
But the scheme does not end with the repetition of a European state of
affairs. Our gravel archeologists have not been content to adopt that
feature of the foreign scheme which utterly destroys the paleolithic
race before a higher culture is brought upon the scene. It was
thought to improve upon the borrowed plan by allowing for a gradual
development upward from the paleolithic stage, represented exclusively
by a class of meaningless bits of flaked stone, through a period less
rude, characterized by productions so far advanced as to be assigned
to a definite use. These latter productions consist mainly of rather
large and often rude blades, sometimes plain, but generally notched or
modified at the broader end as if to be set in a handle, or attached to
a spear or arrow shaft. These were assigned to post-glacial times in
such a way as to bridge or partly bridge the great space between the
glacial epoch and the present. They were separated arbitrarily from the
body of the collections of the region, and referred to as probably the
work of an Eskimo race. This arrangement produced a pleasing symmetry
and completeness, and brought the history of man down to the beginning
of the Indian epoch, which is represented by all of those forms of art
with which the red man is historically associated.
Three principal periods are thus thought to be represented by the
finds at Trenton; and in the arrangement of the collections these
grand divisions are illustrated by three great groups of relics, which
are looked upon by the founders of the scheme as an epitome of native
American art and culture. By others this grouping is looked upon as
purely empirical, as an arbitrary separation of the normal art remains
of the historic Indian, not suggested by anything in the nature or
condition of the objects, nor in the manner of their discovery.
The "Eskimo" feature of the scheme requires a more detailed examination
than can be given it here. It may be stated, however, that the
separation of the so-called Eskimo spear points, or whatever they
may be, from the great body of associated articles of flaked stone,
appears to be a highly arbitrary proceeding. That they were extensively
made by the Indians is proved by the occurrence of refuse resulting
from their manufacture on modern shop sites, and that they were used
by the Indian, is equally apparent from their common occurrence on
modern dwelling sites. The exceptionally large size of the argellite
points is readily accounted for by the nature of the material. It was
the only stone of the region well adapted to the manufacture of long
blades or projectile points. Jasper, quartz and flint have such minute
cleavage that, save in rare cases, small implements only could be
made from them. Their peculiar manner of occurrence, described at so
much length by Dr. Abbott,[6] has been given undue consideration and
weight. The phenomena observed may all be accounted for as a result of
the vicissitudes of aboriginal life and occupation within the last few
hundred years as fully and satisfactorily as by jumping thousands of
years backward into the unknown.
[6] Abbott, C. C. Popular Science Monthly, Dec., 1889.
Whatsoever real support there may be for the "Eskimo" theory, either in
the published or the unpublished evidence, it is apparent that under
the present system of solitary and inexpert research, the scientific
world will gain little that it can utilize without distrust and danger.
Whatsoever may be the final outcome--which outcome is bound to be the
truth--it is clear that there is little in the present evidence to
warrant the separation of a "paleolithic" and an "Eskimo" period of art
from that of the Indian.
That the art remains of the Trenton region are essentially a unit,
having no natural separation into time, culture or stock groups,
is easily susceptible of demonstration. I have already presented
strong reasons for concluding that all the finds upon the Trenton
sites are from the surface or from recent deposits, and that all may
reasonably be assigned to the Indian. A find has recently been made
which furnishes full and decisive evidence upon this point. At Point
Pleasant, on the Delaware, some twenty-five miles above Trenton, there
are outcrops of argillite, and here have been discovered recently the
shop sites upon which this stone was worked. There are two features
of these shops to which the closest attention must be given. The
first is that they are manifestly modern; they are situated on the
present flood plain of the Delaware, and but a few feet above average
water level, the glacial terrace here being some forty or fifty feet
in height. These shops, therefore, represent the most modern phases
of aboriginal industry, and may have been occupied at the coming of
William Penn. The second point is that every type of flaked argillite
found in the Trenton region, associated with the gravels or otherwise,
is found on this site. It was to a certain extent a quarry site, for
the great masses of argillite brought down by the floods were here
broken up and removed from the river banks or bed. It was a shop site,
for here the articles, mainly blades, were roughed out, and it was
also a dwelling place--a village site--where all the specialized forms
of flaked stones made from the blades were prepared for use. Here are
found great numbers of the rude failures, duplicating every feature
of the mysterious "paleolith" with which our museums are stocked,
and exhibiting the same masterly quitting at just the point "where
no further shaping was possible."[7] Here we see the same boldly
manipulated "cutting edge," the "flat bottom" and "high peak," and the
same mysteriously weathered and disintegrated surfaces, so skillfully
made, by a nice balancing of accidents,[8] to tell the story of
chronologic sequence in deposition.
[7] Abbott, C. C. Smithsonian Report, 1875, p. 248.
[8] Ibid. Primitive Industry, p. 487.
Beside the failures, we have here, as on other quarry shop sites, the
evidence of more advanced work, the wide, thick, defective blades, and
many of the long, thin blades broken at or near the finishing point.
Here, too, just back of the roughing-out shops, are the dwelling sites
from which many specialized forms are obtained. The "Eskimo" type
is fully represented as well as the ordinary spear point, the arrow
point, and the perforator of our Indian. There is not a type of flaked
argillite known in the Delaware valley that may not be duplicated
here on this modern Indian site, and this has been known by local
archeologists for years. Why so little has been said about the matter
is thus explained. Dr. Abbott, in 1890, discovering this site, and
finding "typical paleolithic implements" (the ordinary ruder forms of
rejects) among the refuse, was so entirely at a loss to explain the
occurrence that he felt compelled to again "take up the examination
of the gravel deposits of the valley of the Delaware" with the hope
of "finally solving the problem."[9] The true conditions would have
been at once apparent to any one not utterly blinded by the prevailing
misconceptions.
[9] Abbott, C. C. Annual Report of the Curator of the Museum of
American Archeology, University of Pennsylvania. No. 1, p. 7.
The entire simplicity of the archeologic conditions in the Delaware
valley may be further illustrated. Had William Penn paused in his
arduous traffic with the tawny Delawares, and glanced out with
far-sighted eyes from beneath the pendant branches of the great elm
at Shackamaxon, he might have beheld an uncouth savage laboriously
fabricating rude ice age tools, making the clumsy turtle-back, shaping
the mysterious paleolith, thus taking that first and most interesting
theoretical step in human art and history. Had he looked again a few
moments later he might have beheld the same tawny individual deeply
absorbed in the task of trimming a long rude spear point of "Eskimo"
type from the refractory argillite. If he had again paused when another
handful of baubles had been judiciously exchanged, he would have seen
the familiar redskin carefully finishing his arrow points and fitting
them to their shafts preparatory to a hunting and fishing cruise on the
placid Delaware. Thus in a brief space of time Penn might have gleaned
the story of the ages--the history of the turtle-back, the long spear
point and their allies--as in a single sheaf. But the opportunity was
wasted, and the heaps of flinty refuse left upon the river bank by the
workmen were the only record left of the nature of the work of that
day. Two hundred years of aboriginal misfortune and Quaker inattention
and neglect have resulted in so mixing up the simple evidence of
a day's work, that it has taken twenty-five years to collect the
scattered fragments, to sift, separate and classify them, and to assign
them to theoretic places in a scheme of culture evolution that spans
ten thousand years.
Yet is there really nothing in it all, in the theories, the
observations, the collections and the books? Do I speak too positively
in condemnation of the results of years of earnest investigation?
Perhaps so, but the voluminous testimony is so overloaded with
inaccuracies, the relics of unscientific method and misleading
hypotheses, that every item must be sharply questioned; and the
conclusions reached so far overstep the limits warranted by the
evidence, that heroic measures alone can be effectual in determining
their exact value. If, as many believe, vital errors have been
embodied in the evidence presented by the advocates of the theory,
it is impossible to state the case too strongly. Error once fully
absorbed into the literature of science has many advantages over the
tardy truth; it is strongly fortified and must be attacked and exposed
without fear or favor. Truth involved with it cannot permanently
suffer. If the twin theories of a gravel and a paleolithic man in
eastern America are to be assailed as unsound or as not properly
supported, it should be done now while the originators and upholders
are alive and alert to sustain their positions or to yield to the
advances of truth. I do not wish to wrongly characterize or to unduly
minimize the evidence brought to bear in favor of these theories. I do
intend, however, to assist the world so far as possible in securing an
exact estimate of all that has been said and done, and all that is to
be done.
In a previous article I have examined the evidence relating to
paleolithic art in the eastern United States, and have indicated
its utter inadequacy and unreliability. In this paper the testimony
relating to the occurrence of gravel art, in the locality most fully
relied upon by advocates of the theory, has been partially reviewed
and subjected to the strong light of recent observations. It is found
that the whole fabric, so imposing in books and museums, shrinks away
surprisingly as it is approached. The evidence furnished by the bluff
face and by the railway cutting, the two leading sites, is fatally
weakened by the practical demonstration of the fact that the gravels
proper are at these points barren of art remains. In endeavoring to
naturalize an immigrant hypothesis, our gravel searchers, unacquainted
with the true nature of the objects collected and discussed, and little
skilled in the observation of the phenomena by means of which all
questions of age must be determined, have undoubtedly made grievous
mistakes and have thus misled an expectant and credulous public.
The articles themselves, the so-called gravel finds, when closely
studied are found to tell their own story much more fully and
accurately than it has heretofore been read by students of archeology.
This story is that the art of the Delaware valley is to all intents and
purposes a unit, that there is nothing unique or especially primitive
or ancient and nothing un-Indian in it all. All forms are found on
demonstrably recent sites of manufacture. The rude forms assigned
by some to glacial times are all apparently "wasters" of Indian
manufacture. The large blades of "Eskimo" type are only the larger
blades, knives and spear points of the Indian, separated arbitrarily
from the body of the art-remains to subserve the ends of a theory,
certain obscure phenomena of occurrence having been found to give color
to the proceeding. To place any part of this art, rude or elaborate,
permanently in any other than the ordinary Indian category will take
stronger proofs than have yet been developed in the region itself.
The question asked in the beginning, "Are there traces of glacial man
in the Trenton gravels?" if not answered decisively in the negative,
stands little chance, considering present evidence, of being answered
in the affirmative. In view of the fact that numerous observations
of apparent value have been made in other sections, there is yet
sufficient reason for letting the query stand, and we may continue to
cherish the hope that possibly by renewed effort and improved methods
of investigation, something may yet be found in the Trenton gravels
clearly demonstrative of the fascinating belief in a great antiquity
for the human race in America.
The evidence upon which _paleolithic man_ in America depends is so
intangible that, unsupported by supposed analogies with European
conditions and phenomena, and by the suggestions of an ideal scheme
of culture progress, it would vanish in thin air; and if the theory of
a _glacial man_ can summon to its aid no better testimony than that
furnished by the examples examined in this paper, the whole scheme,
so elaborately mounted and so confidently proclaimed, is in imminent
danger of early collapse.
=W. H. Holmes.=