Yet is there really nothing in it all, in the theories, the observations, the collections and the books? Do I speak too positively in condemnation of the results of years of earnest investigation? Perhaps so, but the voluminous testimony is so overloaded with inaccuracies, the relics of unscientific method and misleading hypotheses, that every item must be sharply questioned; and the conclusions reached so far overstep the limits warranted by the evidence, that heroic measures alone can be effectual in determining their exact value. If, as many believe, vital errors have been embodied in the evidence presented by the advocates of the theory, it is impossible to state the case too strongly. Error once fully absorbed into the literature of science has many advantages over the tardy truth; it is strongly fortified and must be attacked and exposed without fear or favor. Truth involved with it cannot permanently suffer. If the twin theories of a gravel and a paleolithic man in eastern America are to be assailed as unsound or as not properly supported, it should be done now while the originators and upholders are alive and alert to sustain their positions or to yield to the advances of truth. I do not wish to wrongly characterize or to unduly minimize the evidence brought to bear in favor of these theories. I do intend, however, to assist the world so far as possible in securing an exact estimate of all that has been said and done, and all that is to be done. In a previous article I have examined the evidence relating to paleolithic art in the eastern United States, and have indicated its utter inadequacy and unreliability. In this paper the testimony relating to the occurrence of gravel art, in the locality most fully relied upon by advocates of the theory, has been partially reviewed and subjected to the strong light of recent observations. It is found that the whole fabric, so imposing in books and museums, shrinks away surprisingly as it is approached. The evidence furnished by the bluff face and by the railway cutting, the two leading sites, is fatally weakened by the practical demonstration of the fact that the gravels proper are at these points barren of art remains. In endeavoring to naturalize an immigrant hypothesis, our gravel searchers, unacquainted with the true nature of the objects collected and discussed, and little skilled in the observation of the phenomena by means of which all questions of age must be determined, have undoubtedly made grievous mistakes and have thus misled an expectant and credulous public.