We are certain the ocean area must have presented a vastly different aspect before that depression commenced. It is not unreasonable to suppose that communication between North America and Asia was much easier than in subsequent epochs. It might have been an easy matter for man to pass back and forth without losing sight of land. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that if Pliocene man was in existence, he would have occupied both sides of the Pacific at this early time.21 These last conclusions are very important ones to reach, and as there is reasonable foundation for them, we must bear them in mind in the subsequent pages. It will be remembered that the races of men who inhabited Europe in the Paleolithic Age had only very rudely formed, unpolished implements. It is not until we arrive at the Neolithic stage of culture that we meet with specimens of polished stone implements. To judge from the specimens of early Californian art, the beautifully polished pestles, beads, plummets or sinkers, spear-heads, etc., Pliocene man in California must have been in the Neolithic stage of culture. Though they were not acquainted with the potter’s art, yet from their skill in working vessels of stone, they had undoubtedly passed entirely through Savagism, and had entered the confines of Barbarism,22 as far 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 archæologist 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