Archæological history of Ohio : the mound builders and later Indians / by Gerard Fowke.
- Gerard Fowke
- Date:
- 1902
Licence: In copyright
Credit: Archæological history of Ohio : the mound builders and later Indians / by Gerard Fowke. Source: Wellcome Collection.
41/788 page 17
![“On carefully examining the Loveland specimen, I found it partly covered with dark, well-compacted earth, resembling the soil of the surface of the terrace, rather than the light-colored, fine-grained calcareous powder characterizing the matrix, such as there is, of the gravel deposits.” — Holmes, Ohio, 163. The next discovery was at Newcomerstown, Tuscarawas county, where in 1889, W. C. Mills found “ A finely shaped flint implement sixteen feet below the surface of the terrace of glacial gravel. Except for the difference in the material from which it is made, it would be impossible to distinguish it from [a certain type of paleolithic implement found in France]. The similarity of pattern is too minute to have originated except from imitation.” — Wright, 250-1. The last sentence is a little obscure. If there was any way in which glacial man at Newcomerstown could have found the opportunity to exercise diis powers of “ imitation ” at such long range as to the region of Central France, the method should be fully explained and not left to conjecture. Later it \vas explained explicitly that “ Mr. Mills found this specimen projecting from a fresh exposure of the perpendicular bank, fifteen feet below the surface. He thrust his cane into the coarser gravel which is seen to overlie the finer deposits. This resulted in detaching a large mass about six feet long and two feet wide, which fell down at his feet. It was in the face of the bank behind this mass that Mr. Mills discovered the implement. There is no possibility of mistake concerning the undisturbed character of the gravel from which he took the implement. All the strata were dearly exposed and observed by him.” — Wright, 1893. When Mr. Holmes visited this place, the gravel bank had been so altered by the removal of material for railway ballast that he was compelled to study parts several feet from where the implement was obtained ; but the general character of the whole mass was so uniform that he felt justified in certain inferences concerning the manner in which it may have reached the spot where found. The publication of his report brought the following criticism from Professor Wright. “In the case of the discovery at Newcomerstown, Mr. Holmes is. peculiarly unfortunate in his efforts to present the facts, since, in en- deavoring 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 2](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b24849959_0041.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
