Man and the Glacial Period

by G. Frederick Wright

[T] The volume The Glacial Geology of Great Britain and Ireland, edited from the unpublished MSS. of the late Henry Carvill Lewis (London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1894), adds much important evidence in favour of the continuity of the Glacial epoch; see especially pp. 187, 460, 461, 466.

[U] Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xxxvii, Part I, pp. 127-150.

[V] American Geologist, vol. viii, p. 246.

[W] Forschungen zur deutschen Landes und Volkskunde von Dr. A. Kirchhoff. Bd. vi, Heft i.

When the first edition was issued, two years ago, there seemed to be a general acceptance of all the facts detailed in it which directly connected man with the Glacial period both in America and in Europe; and, indeed, I had studiously limited myself to such facts as had been so long and so fully before the public that there would seem to be no necessity for going again into the details of evidence relating to them. It appears, however, that this confidence was ill-founded; for the publication of the book seems to have been the signal for a confident challenge, by Mr. W. H. Holmes, of all the American evidence, with intimations that the European also was very likely equally defective.[X] In particular Mr. Holmes denies the conclusiveness of the evidence of glacial man adduced by Dr. Abbott and others at Trenton, N. J.; Dr. Metz, at Madisonville, Ohio; Mr. Mills, at Newcomerstown, Ohio; and Miss Babbitt, at Little Falls, Minn.

[X] Journal of Geology, vol. i, pp. 15-37, 147-163; American Geologist, vol. xi, pp. 219-240.

The sum of Mr. Holmes’s effort amounts, however, to little more than the statement that, with a limited amount of time and labour, neither he nor his assistants had been able to find any implements in undisturbed gravel in any of these places; and the suggestion of various ways in which he thinks it possible that the observers mentioned may have been deceived as to the original position of the implements found. But, as had been amply and repeatedly published,[Y] Professor J. D. Whitney, Professor Lucien Carr, Professor N. S. Shaler, Professor F. W. Putnam, of Harvard University, besides Dr. C. C. Abbott, all expressly and with minute detail describe finding implements in the undisturbed gravel at Trenton, which no one denies to be of glacial origin. In the face of such testimony, which had been before the public and freely discussed for several years, it is an arduous undertaking for Mr. Holmes to claim that none of the implements have been found in place, because he and his assistants (whose opportunities for observation had scarcely been one twentieth part as great as those of the others) failed to find any. To see how carefully the original observations were made, one has but to read the reports to Professor Putnam which have from time to time appeared in the Proceedings of the Peabody Museum and of the Boston Society of Natural History,, and which are partially summed up in the thirty-second chapter of Dr. Abbott’s volume on Primitive Industry.

[Y] Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, vol. xxi, January 19, 1881; Report of the Peabody Museum, vol. ii, pp. 44-47; chap, xxxii of Abbott’s Primitive Industry; American Geologist, vol. xi, pp. 180-184.

In the case of the discovery at Newcomerstown, Mr. Holmes is peculiarly unfortunate in his efforts to present the facts, since, in endeavouring to represent the conditions under which the implement was found by Mr. Mills, he has relied upon an imaginary drawing of his own, in which an utterly impossible state of things is pictured. The claim of Mr. Holmes in this case, as in the other, is that possibly the gravel in which the implements were found had been disturbed. In some cases, as in Little Falls and at Madison ville, he thinks the implements may have worked down to a depth of several feet by the overturning of trees or by the decay of the tap-root of trees. A sufficient answer to these suggestions is, that Mr. Holmes is able to find no instance in which the overturning of trees has disturbed the soil to a depth of more than three or four feet, while some of the implements in these places had been found buried from eight to sixteen feet. Even if, as Mr. Chamberlin suggests,[Z] fifty generations of trees have decayed on the spot since the retreat of the ice, it is difficult to see how that would help the matter, since the effect could not be cumulative, and fifty upturnings of three or four feet would not produce the results of one upturning of eight feet. Moreover, at Trenton, where the upturning of trees and the decaying of tap-roots would have been as likely as anywhere to bury implements, none of those of flint or jasper (which occur upon the surface by tens of thousands) are buried more than a foot in depth; while the argillite implements occur as low down as fifteen or twenty feet. This limitation of flint and jasper implements to the surface is conclusively shown not only by Dr. Abbott’s discoveries, but also by the extensive excavations at Trenton of Mr. Ernest Volk, whose collections formed so prominent a part of Professor Putnam’s Palæolithic exhibit at the Columbian Exposition at Chicago. In the village sites explored by Mr. Volk, argillite was the exclusive material of the implements found in the lower strata of gravel. Similar results are indicated by the excavations of Mr. H. C. Mercer at Point Pleasant, Pa., about twenty miles above Trenton, where, in the lower strata, the argillite specimens are sixty-one times more numerous than the jasper are.