Page:The Journal of geology (IA journalofgeology11893univ).pdf/179

almost any quarry-shop site. The pick-like object from Loveland is somewhat unique, and thus has a certain interest of its own, independent of the manner of its finding. At best, however, it was probably not a finished implement at all and there is strong evidence that it has never been used. It may not have more than a remote resemblance to any tool ever employed by the occupants of the valley. The Newcomerstown object appears to have a marked resemblance to certain foreign implements, but the Tuscarawas valley flint-shops furnish many other specimens whose analogies are nearly if not quite as close.

These specimens constitute the Ohio evidence. There is nothing more, for it would be a great mistake to present surface finds as "paleoliths" or as gravel art, no matter how close their resemblance to these or to European forms. It is safest to assign all to the historic Indian save those obtained and proved to have been obtained from the gravels in place.

These three specimens furnish the most satisfactory proofs, so far collected, that a glacial, paleolithic man inhabited the Ohio valley, and upon the evidence of these three slightly shaped stones, obtained from isolated localities, it has been proposed to carry the history of man back some thousands of years farther than can be done by any other means yet discovered.

No careful student will venture to say that the evidence furnished by the three specimens is satisfactory and conclusive. The finds are not demonstrably implements but have the characteristics rather of rejects of manufacture. Their employment as evidence of a paleolithic stage of culture serves only to emphasize the utter inadequacy of the available proofs on that point.

Considering the meagre and unsafe nature of these proofs, there seems little doubt that a glacial man for the Ohio valley has been somewhat prematurely announced and unduly paraded.