Imágenes de páginas

creased since, and if now subjected to actual count, would be multiplied many times. Many of the specimens, those of quartz and quartzite or other refractory material, were rude like those from Piney Branch, Holmes' Pl. IV (Pl. XIX), but those made of fint or other homogeneous material which chipped easily, were smooth and clean, and on comparison with paleolithic implements from Europe could scarcely be distinguished; those from Texas and Utah especially so.

Bearing on this question, I chose 72 specimens out of some hundreds of the "double turtle-backs," as Mr. Holmes calls them, collected by Mr. Wm. Hunter from the neighborhood of Mt. Vernon, Va., and have had them photographed and made into a Plate XXVII.

The specimens on this plate could be duplicated from almost any state. A comparison will show that the same implements are found in every state in the United States. The hammer-stone in the center happens to have been from Piney Branch. The introduction of this is to show that “the double turtle-backs" are found elsewhere than at Piney Branch in considerable numbers; that they are not isolated and sporadic, and that they are shapely and regular, even when made from the refractory quartzite, so much so as to demonstrate them to have been intentional and not accidental forms, and were neither“ rejects,” “refuse," nor "failures.”


Mr. Holmes refuses to consider the implements as furnishing any evidence of their own antiquity. He refuses to compare them with European or other known paleolithic implements, or to accept them as paleolithic because of any similarity of form, appearance, or mode of manufacture. I agree that all existing evidence should be presented and I suppose this has been done in the present case. Accepting this proposition only for the sake of this argument, my reply is that he then has no evidence of antiquity of any portion of the quarry.

Mr. Holmes contends that this great quarry, nigh a quarter of a mile square, had been dug over and excavated, (as is shown by the section, his Plate I), to an average depth of six feet and in many places to eight and nine feet, along the entire hillside and around its point. He contends that every cubic foot of this section had been dug over, in places to the bed rock, and the stones and clay handled and worked. All the boulders and earth had been loosened and shovelled, and the entire mass re-deposited by the diggers, as the work progressed. Mr. Holmes not only admits this anterior disturbance, but claims it as giving the chief importance to his discovery. His Plate III, a photograph of the quarry face, is introduced by him to demonstrate this prior excavation.

But all this has naught to do in showing the antiquity of the quarry. If he refuses consideration and comparison of the implements and objects found therein, there is nothing to show that all this excavation, trench making and stone breaking may not have been done in comparatively modern times. There is nothing to indicate its antiquity unless it be the appearance of the surface, and this is only by the thickness of soil and the size of the trees; and both of these may have been, the latter must have been, commenced since the early part of this century.

If these trenches, of such length, depth and extent, had been dug by the modern Indian, as declared by Mr. Holmes, we can scarcely imagine that it would have been filled up, raked down, and smoothed over to a regular slope as it now is and was when the trees began to grow on it. Mr. Holmes' Plate I shows the regularity of this slope correctly. Where Mr. Holmes' greatest trenches were dug, the slope from the top of the hill to the bottom is regular and true without any ridge or hollow to indicate an open trench or pit left by the Indian who is alleged to have made it. By whomsoever that quarry was opened and whoever dug those trenches, they were afterward filled up and smoothed over, leaving no break or depression affecting the regularity of the outline of the hill-side. Our knowledge of the modern Indian teaches us that he would not perform this, to him, useless labor. This profound disturbance (the French call it remaniement) of the bowlders, clay and earth of the section, leaves no stratification and destroys all evidences of the age of the deposit. There is no fauna.

This, with the item just mentioned, leaves us without evidence as to the antiquity of the quarry work except as furnished by the implements themselves. Their rejection as evidence would leave the question of its antiquity unanswered, and would render the quarry of slight archaeological value. If Mr. Holmes had found stone axes, hatchets or gouges, spear or arrow heads, pieces of pipes, or fragments of pottery, these would have served as evidence of Indian origin, but the utter absence of any of these leaves the Indian theory unsupported; It is a canon of prehistoric archæology, verified by every worker in the field, that no such extensive work as claimed for this quarry could have been done by prehistoric man without having left some of his tools, implements or utensils. But here not an implement or weapon fragment of polished or smoothed stone, not an arrow or spear head, nor pottery, was found.

Mr. Holmes says (p. 13), “Only one was found * * * (with) a rude stem worked out at the broad end. This specimen was found near the surface. Two other pieces found at considerable depth exhibit slight indication of specialization of form, which, however, might have been accidental.” And this was all.

If it be said that this was a quarry for bowlders with which to make these implements, and that their finding in the disturbed and disarranged deposits is evidence of this fact, I reply, that the surface of the neighborhood is covered with the same kind of bowlders and many of the same kind of implements, and there is no more evidence to show that the implements were made in the quarry than there is that they were made on the surface. For anything shown in the quarry, the whole batch of turtle-backs, double and single, flaked stones, waste, debris, etc., etc., might have been originally on the surface, made there, possibly, in times of antiquity and been tumbled into the ditch, whenever it was filled up.


Mr. Holmes' paper is radical and final. He not only determines every proposition presented by the implements found at Piney Branch, but he determines them finally, and further discussion is useless. According to him, we know (from his investigation) all about these implements, all about the man who made them, the race to which he belonged, his use of tools, his machinery and mode of manufacture, his transportation, and a large suggestion concerning his culture.. If his conclusion be correct, then Mr. Holmes has determined the entire history of this man as well as that of the implements them. selves. His statement is no longer a theory, it is a demonstrated proposition, a proved problem, the work is finished and the book is sealed. It is submitted that this is a greivous mistake.


I do not attempt any argument to account for this quarry or to explain either the manufacture or use of its implements. It is not my discovery, and I am in no wise bound to sustain or uphold it.

In the discussion, I have said no word about Paleolithic man in America. That question is not involved here. I have elsewhere set forth my opinion on that subject, and I may enlarge upon it on some other occasion, but not here or now.

I have sought only to criticise the theories of Mr. Holmes in reference to the quarry and its implements, and to show what I deem to be the errors in his conclusions, and in doing so I have avoided personalities. I have indulged in no maligning or abusive words, have conceded to him the most honorable intentions, and a truthful rendering of all his facts; and professing for him the kindest and most friendly feeling, I assert that in what I have said, I have given my own fair, and, as far as possible, unbiased opinion and judg. ment, being moved thereto solely in the interest of truth and science.




(Continued from page 912). The replacing and mineralizing influence of surface waters may preserve bones which would otherwise quickly disappear. At Big Bone Lick in Kentucky the great numbers of bones of the buffalo are found according to Prof. Shaler" near the present position of the springs and never at any depth beneath the surface.These bones are in some places “massed to the depth of two feet or more, as close as the stones of a pavement, and so beaten down by the succeeding herds as to make it difficult to lift them from their bed." The attraction of this locality for the herds of wild animals spread through the forests of Kentucky in plistocene and recent times, arose from the saline encrustations made by the natural brines which spring to the surface at this point. There is an ossuary of their remains, the mastodon and elephant bones being upon the higher levels and the buffalo skeletons placed more within the swampy basin, which has itself undergone denudation since the advent of the great proboscideans. These bones are impregnated with salt and have become partially mineralized, while the salt solution itself neutralizes any vegetable acids arising from the decomposition of the reeds which, according to Mr. Cooper, accompany the bones. Yet the falling into swamps or bogs of the great mammals and their gradual submersion and burial in the deeper layers of the tenacious and yielding mixture, has been a means of preserving their remains, especially, as besides their partial immunity from the action of organic acids, their great bones have formed, from their formidable size and texture, an irreducible nucleus. But

The preservation of the bones of the Megalonyx in the Big Bone cave in Tennessee, may be partially ascribed to the presence of large quantities of saltpeter earth.

« AnteriorContinuar »