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.
...highly permineralized human bones found embedded in the travertine rock of Calaveras County caves--once thought to be of Pliocene age and later estimated to be 12,000 years old--are, on present evidence, no more than 3000 to 4000 years old. ...The most controversial discovery was the "Calaveras skull," a partial cranium found in 1866 at a depth of 40 m in a mine shaft penetrating Eocene gravels and lava beds on Bald Hill near Angels Camp, Calaveras County. The bones were fossilized and heavily encrusted with calcareous material, supporting the notion of great antiquity. The appelation of "Auriferous Gravel Man" persisted through 4 decades, until Ales Hrdlicka showed conclusively that the Calaveras skull was that of a recent Indian, and Sinclair discredited the story of its discovery.
In 1880 the respected geologist J. D. Whitney published a report culminating a long study of Sierran gold-bearing strata as related to Early Man. Whitney admitted the Calaveras skull, oral testimony from miners, and affidavits from "expert witnesses" as evidence that the remains of humans and extinct fauna were coeval with Tertiary gravels. Artifacts often identical to those made by historic Indians, reportedly found in auriferous deposits, were taken to support Whitney's belief that little or no cultural change had occurred in California since Pliocene times.
Reaction to Whitney's case for "Eocene Man" tended to be negative. Critical reviews by Holmes and Sinclair exposed the problems of using testimony and the like as scientific evidence; they offered no support for the idea of Tertiary archaeology. Nonetheless, Whitney's contentions and the reactions to them were important milestones. As Warren has observed, they mark the emergence of California archaeology [references omitted].