Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 17.djvu/717

Rh Carr, Abbott, Shaler, Andrews, Bandelier, Schumacher, Blake, Reynolds, and Morgan. As we retrospect American archæology, this volume assumes an interesting prominence. It is only turned a generation of years since that grand venture was made of the first volume of the Smithsonian contributions to publish Squier's and Davis's "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley." Davis's collection of antiquities, therein so well figured, was to us a sight never to be forgotten. It is about a score of years ago when we groaned in spirit with that worthy man. Misfortune had set upon him, and he must sell his treasure. Must it be said that in the whole breadth of our wealthy land neither individual nor institution could be found to give the poor man a bid? So an Englishman appears, who buys the collection, and removes it to his own country. What a change since then! Not to speak of the national treasures of the Smithsonian in this line, our country has now, through the far-sightedness of one remarkable man, its special museum of American archæology. Of the grand collection it already possesses, and the solid work it is doing, these interesting reports are in evidence.

Of course, we can not specify articles, but perhaps may say that no papers in this volume will command more attention than those of Dr. Abbott, in which he insists on his having found palæolithic implements in undisturbed glacial drift, near Trenton, New Jersey; and his claimed discovery of an interglacial (why not autochthonic?) race of men. Assuredly the Doctor shows much skill in his diagnosis, and his subject receives what the faculty might term heroic treatment. As against very high authority, he insists on a difference of action in the deposition of the gravels in his cliff, and of others in the railroad-cuts near by, albeit both are of the same geological horizon. The Doctor feels that the difference thus claimed favors his theory. Without expressing any opinion, it must be admitted that the position is argued with ability.

It is quite in keeping with the importance of the subject when Professor Putnam induced Professor Shaler to make a geological reconnaissance of the places containing the supposed palæoliths; and it should be said that the conservatism of the Professor's report shows a safe spirit, although it is, on the whole, not unfavorable to Dr. Abbott's views. We own to some surprise that this report does not so much as allude to Dr. Cook's labors. He says: "I hope hereafter to finish a detailed account of the geology of these gravel-beds." He also says: "The entire absence of organic remains in the mass proves that it was essentially a lifeless sea in which they were laid down." It may be of interest to state that, since Professor Shaler wrote his report, the New Jersey State geologist has obtained from the gravel in the railroad cuts at Trenton a large portion of a proboscidian's tusk, which has suffered indubitable wear from water, and perhaps glacial action.

It is, we think, a fact patent to all who know what is meant by solid, patient work in the domain of science, that this new science of prehistoric archaeology has drawn to itself an immense brood of callow thinkers. The merest accident of finding a few relics is supposed to constitute the text and the ability for a paper on the subject, either for some periodical or maybe some learned society. The lookout is good for American archaeology in that we have so grand a school as this Peabody Museum, and so safe a vehicle of instruction as is afforded by its annual report. The tread of Science should be stately, and her footing sure. None more than she should "prove all things, and hold fast the good." Festine lente. When, in these fascinating walks of grand thinkings, the imagination gets into a rush, it will be well if this institution shall provide the engineer who will whistle down the brakes.

reprint, from the twenty-eighth English edition of Captain Brown's Manual, will be a very welcome book to the large and increasing class of students and amateurs interested in natural history and the preservation of natural-history specimens. The author thinks that many valuable specimens are lost because of the lack of