Doubts about early man in the Americas seem to have been an occupational disease with archaeologists. Geologists have found it much easier to accept him. Men like Ernst Antevs, M. M. Leighton, Kirk Bryan, and Albrecht Penck, perhaps because they are accustomed to dealing generously with time, seem to have little trouble in embracing early man as a Late Glacial interloper anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000 years ago. Physical anthropologists like Earnest A. Hooton and Sir Arthur Keith, and cultural anthropologists and ethnologists like Roland Dixon and A. C. Haddon are not at all afraid to recognize signs of Australoid or Negroid ancestry in the skulls of New World man. Perhaps it is easier for the geologists and the physical anthropologists to accept such ideas because they do not run counter to their own dogmas. Many archaeologists, at any rate, find it extraordinarily hard to adjust themselves to evidence which does not fit accepted theories. They may defend themselves by pointing out that the evidence is not too clear, or at best is merely suggestive; but the theories they cherish arose from no firmer evidence in many cases, and frequently continue quite as unclear or at best merely suggestive. Certainly such reluctance to accept new evidence held back archaeological research when Aleš Hrdlička, W. H. Holmes, and Daniel G. Brinton were in their heyday. This reluctance to face facts permeated even so great and productive a man as Baron Erland Nordenskiöld. An example of such a Jovian nod may be salutary. Arguing in _The Copper and Bronze Ages in South America_ against the theory that the craft of metallurgy may have been brought to the New World by migrants, instead of having been invented here, three times he cites facts that contradict his thesis, and three times he offers a kind of self-conscious apology for blinking them. (The italics are ours.) If we go through all our material of weapons and tools of bronze and copper from South America, _we must confess_ that there is not much that is entirely original, and that to the majority of fundamental types there is something to correspond in the Old World. _It must be confessed_ that there is considerable similarity between the metal technique of the New World and that of the Old during the Bronze Age. Bronze is, of course, also a very hard invention, and _I must confess_ to finding it most remarkable that the art of alloying tin and copper should have been hit upon independently both in the Old World and the New.[3] “Admissions,” said Charles John Darling, “are mostly made by those who do not know their importance.” Unfortunately there are still a few archaeologists whose attitude resembles Nordenskiöld’s. Hooton writes of one of these: