The author admits that while there seems to be a correlation between maternal descent and the husband's residence with his parents-in-law and between paternal descent and the wife's residence with her husband (as Tylor has shown), many exceptions are found to this rule (the author refers to the Australian evidence). Nevertheless, he repeatedly represents the husband's residence with his wife as a survival from motherright. When the husband, for a certain period after marriage, is not permitted to take the wife away and may only visit her, openly or secretly, we have another "survival." May not the customs be due, for instance, to the reluctance of the wife's relatives or clanmates, to lose a member of the local group? This would be equally plausible in father-right and in mother-right. The period of probation to which the future son-in-law is subjected (another “survival") may be explained by economic or moral considerations, or what not. Some instances cited by the author are quite puzzling. I leave it to the reader to determine, for instance, what particular customs of the Maidu (II, p. 82) may be interpreted as survivals from the stage of maternal descent. Even sexual laxity, to which so much space is devoted in the second volume, is treated as a prerogative of mother-right, although the author is forced to admit that "matrilineal freedom has often survived into father-right in more or less abundant measure" (II, pp. 136-7). If we forget for a moment that father-right is necessarily preceded by mother-right, the "survivals" become weighty arguments against the author's position. For what they show is that many traits deemed peculiar to mother-right are also found in father-right; a realization which can not but deeply affect our ideas of the social conditions accompanying the two modes of counting descent.

Having treated of mother-right with considerable care, the author has but little to say of the conditions and peculiarities of father-right. The subject can not be discussed here. We may note, however, that the institution of fictitious parenthood clearly presupposes the realization of the significance of paternity, and thus may not be used as evidence of the absence of such realization (II, p. 248).

But let us return to the subject of sexual laxity. Much could be said as to the character of the evidence used by the author, but I shall merely refer to one account, that of Monteiro (II, pp. 116-117) which may serve as a warning to the reader. But the author sins in a much more important matter. He treats of sexual looseness but he forgets to mention the stringent and multiform regulations which in primitive society restrict sexual intercourse and direct the selection of marriage mates. This is indeed a strange omission. He might as well describe modern

society and omit to mention legalized monogamous marriage. It is true enough in primitive society that absolute physiological chastity is but seldom sought or valued. But this is a matter of point of view, in which even modern civilization can boast but of one-sided progress. If, on the other hand, we juxtapose the sum total of legitimate to that of illegitimate sexual intercourse among ourselves and in primitive communities, the comparison may prove favorable to the latter. Just what is sanctioned by public opinion is, of course, an important question, but it is not the whole question.

Very much the same criticism may be passed on the author's method of dealing with sexual jealousy. Any one acquainted with ethnographic literature (Mr Hartland not excepted) knows that there is plenty of direct evidence of the existence of that passion among primitive men. On the other hand, we might vastly extend the author's list of cases where the savage exhibits no jealousy in situations where to us such exhibition seems natural and imperative. The explanation clearly lies in habits. of inhibition which, beginning in childhood, become fixed early in life. This proposition does not require any proof; however, the subject has been nicely elaborated by Jochelson and Sternberg in their treatises on the peoples of eastern Siberia.

The book is laid aside with a sense of keen disappointment. It does not bring the solution of the problems discussed nor does it indicate the direction for further research. In fact, we can not endorse any of the author's conclusions, with one exception, namely, that mother-right is not based on the uncertainty of paternity (I, 325). Ignorance of the physiology of conception no doubt once pervaded mankind; but no proof is forthcoming that such was the case in a state of society at all comparable to that found among primitive peoples we know. Hence the association of that remote state with mother-right is quite artificial. The author's characterization of the social conditions of mother-right, especially in connection with sexual relations, is vitiated by his assumption that mother-right always preceded father-right; hence, conditions which are common to society under both modes of counting descent are by him ascribed to mother-right only, and, if found in father-right, are treated as survivals. The assumption itself of the universality and priority of mother-right, does not by any means represent, as the author would have us believe, the last word of anthropological science. Fatherright is disposed of with strange superficiality, while the artificial and conventional character claimed for that system remains unproven.

The cause of the author's failure lies in the fact that he kept aloof

from the historical point of view which is beginning to revolutionize the methods of ethnological inquiries. We want a systematic account of the actual distribution of father-right and mother-right. We should like to know the social characteristics of the two systems as found in concrete cultural areas. We may still be able to ascertain some of the historical processes which accompany or determine variations or radical changes in the mode of reckoning descent. Our knowledge of the regulations of marriage and sexual intercourse, in all their manifoldness, is limited indeed; while scarcely any analysis of the psychological basis of these regulations has as yet been attempted. The subject of systems of relationship, in its conceptual as well as in its terminological aspects, is coming to the fore again, and awaits systematic treatment (the author, by the way, merely hints at it). In vain would we look in Hartland's work for research in any of these directions. Instead, he tries to solve complex problems of social organization and development with nought but loose psychological generalizations to start from-absence of jealousy, indifference of paternity, ignorance of physiological conceptiongeneralizations supported by an incoherent mass of ethnographic material. A. A. GOLDEnweiser.

The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site. By HARLAN I. SMITH. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. 4 part 2. New York: Published by the Museum, 1910.

It is well understood among archeologists of the present time that the important unsolved problems of aboriginal man in America are those of race origins, of culture origins, and of chronology, and the author by this contribution has paved the way to the study of these problems by working out the culture history of this particular prehistoric Kentucky site and comparing the results with known and similar culture sites in Ohio, thus furnishing a vast amount of interesting and valuable data concerning the past of this barbarian culture.

The trained archeologist snatches every thread of evidence that leaves its trace in material form, and the author has shown his training along this line by discussing at length the "Resources in Animal and Plant Material" taken from the Kentucky village and making a comparison of the finds with the villages in Ohio. The comparison shows the gray fox absent, but in its stead the red fox. The red fox was not found at either the Baum or Gartner village sites, but the gray fox was very abundant. The only domestic animal known to prehistoric man in Ohio, namely the Indian dog, was also absent from the Kentucky site.

The varieties of corn, the great agricultural product of Kentucky and Ohio sites, were similar, but the subterranean storehouses so abundant in the Ohio sites were absent in the Kentucky sites. The agricultural implements in the Ohio sites were invariably made of large, heavy mussel shells, but, as one approaches the Ohio River region, the shell hoe is replaced somewhat by a hoe made from a thin slab of ferruginous sandstone and, according to the author, by the time the Kentucky site is reached the shell hoe has entirely disappeared.

The author's further discussion and comparison of the various branches of human activity is most worthy. Prominent among these are hunting and the manufacture of the various implements for that purpose; fishing and the preparation of fish hooks; ceramic art and the manufacture of vessels for cooking, etc. No strainers of pottery were found at the Baum or Gartner sites, yet they were apparently found in abundance at the Fox farm site as the writer has lately received a number of specimens from Mr Philip Hinkle, the curator of archeology, Cincinnati Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Graphic and decorative arts are shown upon many artifacts, such as engraving, notching, impressing, and painting. In fact the author has discussed and compared every phenomenon brought forth by the explorations at the Fox site as exemplified by 60 pages of text and 47 full-page plates, and it is to be regretted that Mr Smith was not permitted to finish the explorations, which would no doubt furnish still further data needed to successfully work out the obscure problems of prehistoric man.

WILLIAM C. MILLS.

Le Préhistorique dans l'Europe Centrale. Par A. RUTOT. Extrait des Actes et Mémoires du XII Congrès d'Archéologie et d'Histoire, Malines, 1911. Pp. 114, text figures 22.

This is an abridged second edition of the memoir by the same title that appeared in 1903, with the addition of a chapter on the neolithic. While belief in the existence of a rude stone industry antedating the paleolithic, the so-called eolithic period, did not originate with Rutot, he has been its most active champion for more than a dozen years. To him we owe much of the literature on the subject and practically all the terminology of the eolithic subdivisions. To his Mesvinian, Mafflean, Reutelian, Saint-Prestian, Kentian, and Cantalian horizons of 1903 he has added a still older one, the Fagnian of the Oligocene. This is a step farther than conservative archeologists are able to follow. The latter

can account for all the phenomena at Boncelles and on the HautesFagnes through natural agencies, such as pressure exerted by overlying deposits; and their position is certainly strengthened by the recent discoveries of Commont and Breuil in the lower Eocene station of BelleAssise at Clermont (Oise). Thus the range of the eolithic in the chronologic scale is still a debatable question and will probably continue so to be for an indefinite time owing to the difficulties in the way of drawing a hard and fast line between that which is natural and that which is artificial or intentional.

In the domain of the paleolithic Rutot has added an initial horizon called the Strépyan; for the other horizons he accepts the terminology of the French archeologists.

According to Rutot the change from the paleolithic to the neolithic took place at the beginning of what geologists call the recent epoch, when the reindeer disappeared from Central Europe and the present fauna established itself. At this time an elevation of the land mass practically closed the straits of Denmark converting the Baltic into a great lake. The oldest neolithic industry of Denmark is found in the peat bogs dating from this epoch. It includes objects of stone and bone but no pottery. The second neolithic facies is from the kitchen middens that skirt the shores, and which were formed after a lowering of the land mass had reestablished the straits of Denmark. Then followed a slight elevation, bringing the sea and land to about their present adjustment, and marking the appearance of the first polished stone implements, those of a type that is biconvex in section. This type was succeeded in the fourth epoch by one that is rectangular in section. The author divides the neolithic of Central Europe into five epochs: Tardenoisian, Flenusian, Campignyan, Spiennian, and Omalian. With the beginning of the Campignyan the industrial evolution seems to have been about the same in both Scandinavia and Central Europe. In Southern Europe the neolithic series begins with two phases that differ notably from the Tardenoisian, viz., the Asylian and Arisian of Piette,

The author gives due space to a consideration of the various human remains that might have a bearing on the greater antiquity of man. He classes the lower jaw recently found at Mauer (Homo Heidelbergensis) as eolithic, since it belongs to his Mafflean horizon. The much discussed skeleton from Galley Hill, in the Thames valley below London, he places at the base of the middle Quaternary, corresponding thus to the Strépyan horizon. If this be the case, then we have the interesting phenomenon of two somatologically distinct races existing side by side in Europe for