ar advanced, in fact,
as many of the Indian tribes the Spaniards found in possession of the
country.

It must be confessed this seems very singular. It is this statement
that causes many to shut their eyes to what would be otherwise at once
admitted and refuse to believe the genuineness of the discovery. If the
implements brought to light had been of the rude River Drift type--celts
but little removed from nodules of flint--scholars would not be so
cautious about accepting them. But when we learn they are Neolithic, we
at once see why they hesitate, and ask for more conclusive proofs; yet
this is no reason to disregard the discoveries. They may be a great
surprise, they may be an unwelcome discovery to the holder of some
theories, yet the only question is, whether they are true or not, and
if true, theories must be modified to fit the facts. Prof. Putnam thus
speaks, in reference to them: "As the archaeologist has no right to be
governed by any pre-conceived theories, but must take the facts as he
finds them, it is impossible for him to do otherwise than accept the
deductions of so careful and eminent a geologist as Prof. Whitney, and
draw his conclusions accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that this
Pliocene man was, to judge by his works in stone and shell, as far
advanced as his descendants were at the time of the discovery of
California by the Spaniards."<23>

Perhaps a partial explanation of this matter may be found when we
consider all the circumstances of the case. The origin of man is
generally assigned to some tropical country. Sir John Lubbock thus
speaks of it: "Our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom are confined
to hot, almost tropical climates; and it is in such countries that
we are, perhaps, most likely to find the earliest traces of the human
race."<24> This is also the opinion of other eminent scholars. M.
Quatrefages thinks that man probably originated in Asia. He points out,
however, that, during Tertiary times, the climate was much milder, and
man might have originated in Northern Asia.<25> Now, if it be true that
a great mass of land has disappeared beneath the waves of the Pacific,
why may we not suppose that, if this sunken land was not the original
home of man, it was at a very early time inhabited by him; that here he
passed through his experience in savagism?<26> We know how suited the
islands of the Pacific are to the needs of a savage people; and we must
not lose sight of the probabl