Imágenes de páginas

viii, 156-174. – Valentini (P. J. J.) der Bilsteiner Höhle. Ibid., 1680Das Geschichtliche in den myth- 682).- Ward (L. F.) The data of ischen Städten “Tulan." Ztschr. f. sociology. Am. J. Sociol., Chicago, Ethnol., Berl., 1896, xxviii, 41-55, | 1895–6, i, 738-752.-Warner (F.) 1 map. – Virchow (R.) Die an- Mental and physical conditions thropologische Excursion nach among 50,000 children seen 1892-4, Bosnien, der Herzegovina und Dal- and the methods of studying rematien. Verhandl. d. Berl. Ge- corded observations, with special sellsch. f. Anthrop., 1895, (637-648). reference to the determination of

Exostosen und Hyperosto- the causes of mental dulness and sen von Extremitätenknochen des other defects. J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Menschen, in Hinblick auf den Lond., 1896, lix, 125–168.–Weir Pithecanthropus. Ibid., (787-793, ! (J.) The pygmy in the United 1 pl.) - Ein aus Mammuth- i States. Pop. Sc. Month., N. Y., stosszahn geschnitztes Idol von 1896, xlix, 47–56. --Weisbach (A.) Brünn. Ibid., (705).

Ueber Die Bosnier. Mitth. d. anthrop. den Pithecanthropus erectus Dub. Gesellsch. in Wien, 1895, xxv, 206Ibid., (648-656). Schädel des 239. — Zuccarelli (A.) Poesia e Erzbischofs Liemarus von Bremen. paranoia del poeta calabrese GiuIbid., (783-786).

und A. seppe Serembe. Anomalo, Napoli, Nehring. Osteologische Funde aus 1891-5, vi, 238-284.

LEFT-HANDEDNESS. — With regard to right-handedness, discussed in the last number, let me say that the incident regarding the chipping of arrows was somewhat on this wise: Mr Cushing, when he was assisting Dr Rau some twenty years ago, came across a lot of spearheads rhomboidal in section, and conceived that they were held under the left thumb in chipping, the point outward. That being admitted, the fact forced itself on me that a large proportion of them must have been chipped with the left hand. But Dr Brinton will find in my paper on the “Throwing Stick” (1884, U.S. N. M.) that only two of all of these implements in the National Museum are left-handed. I have studied about one hundred in all, with the result that three are left-handed. As each stick belongs to a different man, while stone spearheads are frequently made in large numbers by the same maker, the throwing stick is the better test. Again, I have in hand nearly a hundred scrapers in handles with finger grooves, and there is not a left handed one among them. The conclusion is that, quod sciam, no savage woman was ever left-handed.

0. T. MASON.

[graphic][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

The various ancient remains of man throughout the world have been so divided and subdivided by archeologists as to present great difficulties when we attempt to study them chronologically. The whole theory of the distinction between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic periods, as the words themselves signify, is the ancient from the recent in the stone period. Is there sufficient evidence to sustain any such mechanical difference among the races of the world? By the majority it is contended there is an abundance of such evidence; the writer contends the contrary.

The only rational hypothesis on which a Paleolithic period may be sustained is that paleolithic implements are complete implements in themselves. If, on the contrary, they are not finished articles, the argument in favor of such a period utterly fails. Whether they are or are not implements has given rise to great diversity of opinion, and the discussion for and against has at times been quite heated.

This question has been discussed but little from a technological point of view, which is remarkable when we consider that the inatter relates to the uses to which implements have been put by primitive man and to the means by which they were made. There are few persons who have attempted to work with primitive tools and there are probably even fewer who have tried to produce them by primitive methods. The writer has demonstrated how some of the neolithic or polished implements were



made, and has experimented sufficiently in chipping different stones to be able to say in what manner much of this chipping was done, and to demonstrate that unusual expertness and skill were requisite in order to shape many of the so-called paleoliths. With the average neolith little time was required to complete it and but little skill was needed, for the tools with which the work was done were most primitive. With the paleolith, on the other hand, but little time would be required to complete it, but the tools necessary were complex and much skill was required not only intelligently to chip the stone, but yet more so to select a proper stone for chipping.

Imperfect knowledge of the lines of fracture of stones has led archeologists to describe as implements certain objects which, were they found in America, would be considered as unfinished implements or raw material. The so-called “cache tool" or lanceolate stones, commonly found in great numbers in a single place, was probably stock material carried from the original source of supply in that shape in which it could best be transported for subsequent specialization into implements. It is not meant to deny that implements or objects of this character would never be employed as tools for any suitable work, but it is suggested that they were not as suitable as were other implements for any work for which they could be employed. In the effort to produce the cache-tool type many failures resulted, as is evidenced in the great quarries at Washington city and at Flint ridge, Missouri, as well as in every other place of original supply in the whole country.

Owing to the differences in shape of these “cache” implements when compared one with another, and to similar differences in many cave implements from the continent of Europe, and the common European drift type of implement, yet the wonderful similarity in general shape and finish among the whole lot, whether from Europe or America, many specialists insist on seeing in them tools which they acknowledge are ruder than implements belonging to modern stone-age peoples, and argue that the rudeness of these objects is in itself evidence of an inferior mechanical skill in those who made them when compared with peoples of a later period. These views the writer has combatted and contends that the differences of shape in these implements are due primarily to structural differences in the fracture of mate

« AnteriorContinuar »