Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-2jptb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:52:25.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Aspects of the Calaveras Skull Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ralph W. Dexter
Ralph W. Dexter*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In February 1866, workers found a human skull deep in a mine in Calaveras County, California, believed at first to be of Pliocene age. It was passed through several hands before reaching J. D. Whitney, State Geologist of California and Professor of Geology at Harvard University. While some scientists accepted it on face value, other scientists and the public press refused to believe it and even ridiculed the claim. Some believed it was a “plant,” while others had faith in the reports of the miners, which led to a long controversy. Apparently two skulls became confused in transmission from one person to another, but in the end they were identified as fossilized Indian skulls of modern type, and it was finally admitted that the one taken from the mine was “planted” as a joke.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 365 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Becker, G. F. 1891 Antiquities From Under Tuolumne Table Mt. in California. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 2: 189–200.Google Scholar
Blake, W. P. 1899 The Pliocene Skull of California and Flint Implements of Table Mt. Jour. Geol. 7: 631–637.Google Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1899 The Calaveras Skull. Proceed Acad. Nat. Sci. of Phila. for 1899, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1948 A Bibliography of Ancient Man in California. Repts. Calif. Arch. Survey, Survey Rept. No. 2, 22 pp.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1962 Man's Discovery of His Past; Literary Landmarks in Archaeology. 179 pp.Google Scholar
Hrdlicka, Ales 1907 Skeletal Remains Suggesting or Attributed to Early Man in North America Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol, Bull. No. 33.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1899 Preliminary Revision of the Evidence Relating to Auriferous Gravel Man in California. Amer. Anthrop. n. s. 1: 107–121, 614–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. H. 1901 Review of the Evidence Relating to Auriferous Gravel Man in California. Annual Rept. Smiths. Insti. for 1899, pp. 419–472. (Reprint of article above.)Google Scholar
Morse, E. S. 1881a Prehistoric Man in America. North American Rev., June 1881.Google Scholar
Morse, E. S. 1881b The Wheeler Survey (Review of Vol. 1 Archaeology). Boston Evening Transcript, 24 December 1881.Google Scholar
Phillips, Philip 1973 The Archaeological Reports of Frederic Ward Putnam. AMS Press., N. Y., for the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. 255 pp.Google Scholar
Putnam, F. W. 1901 Note on Calaveras Skull. 34th Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology for 1899-1900. P. 8.Google Scholar
Sinclair, W. J. 1908 Recent Investigations Bearing on the Question of the Occurrence of Neocene Man in the Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada. Univ. Calif. Pub. in Amer. Arch, and Ethnol. 7(No. 2): 107–131.Google Scholar
Whitney, J. D. 1867 Notice of a Human Skull Recently Taken From a Shaft Near Angels, Calaveras County. Proceed. Calif. Acad. Sci. 3: 277–278. Also, Amer. Jour. Sci. 43: 265–267.Google Scholar
Whitney, J. D. 1880 The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California. Memoirs Mus. Comp. Zool. at Harvard Coll. Mem. 6(No. 1): 267–273.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas 1899 The Beginning of the Science of Prehistoric Anthropology. Proceed. Amer. Assoc. Advanc. of Sci. 48: 309–353.Google ScholarPubMed