32 Field Museum of Natural History — Anth., Vol. X. 



that also in the Shantung stone implements to be described by me this 

 feature does not occur. But I am not going either to insist on the 

 Chinese origin of the latter. We cannot separate archaeological finds 

 from their locality, and as the only conspicuous evidence available for 

 the Anderson collection is that the objects forming it sprang up on the 

 very territory occupied by the Shan, it will be safe to ascribe their 

 origin to a non-Chinese culture-group, and to place certain restrictions 

 on them in a consideration of Chinese archaeology; they belong, not to 

 the archaeology of the Chinese, but of China in a geographical sense. 



Recently, J. Coggin Brown, 1 following the path of Anderson, has 

 examined and described twelve stone implements gathered in T'&ng- 

 yueh or Momien, nine of which are said to be made from various jade- 

 ites ; he upholds the authenticity of the implements traded in that district 

 in opposition to Anderson, but on grounds which are hardly convincing. 



E. Colborne Baber 2 reports the discovery in a stone sarcophagus 

 of a polished stone axehead of serpentine in Ch'ung-k'ing, Sze-ch'uan 

 Province, and of a chisel of polished flint which he found in the posses- 

 sion of an opium-smoker who was scraping the opium stains from his 

 fingers with the edge of the implement; he said that he had found it, 

 and another, in a stone coffin in a field near his house. "It is therefore 

 undeniable," concludes Baber, "that these objects are found in con- 

 nection with coffins, though what the connection may be is not clear. 

 The natives call them hsieh 'wedges' and conceive that their use was 

 to fasten down the lids of sarcophagi in some unexplained manner. 

 A more plausible supposition is that they were buried with the dead in 

 conformity with some traditional or superstitious rite; at any rate the 

 theory is impossible that the people who hollowed out these ponderous 

 monoliths worked with stone chisels, and left their tools inside. " Unfor- 

 tunately, the author does not give any description nor figures of his two 

 specimens which he kept in his private collection, and I have no means 

 of ascertaining what has become of them. Nevertheless, his account is 

 valuable in that it shows the burial of stone implements with the dead in 

 Sze-ch'uan, and we shall see that the same custom prevailed in Shensi. 



A stone hatchet found by Williams in a mound forty feet high near 

 Kalgan has been described by J. Edkins. 3 The mound belongs to a 

 large collection of graves, large and small, about seven miles east of the 

 city of Yii chou, and no miles west of Peking. An ancient wall, nearly 



1 Stone Implements from the Teng-yueh District, Yunnan Province, Western 

 China {Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. V, 1910, pp. 299- 

 305, 2 plates). 



2 Travels and Researches in Western China, pp. 129-131 (in Royal Geographical 

 Society, Supplementary Papers, Vol. I, London, 1886). 



3 Stone Hatchets in China {Nature, Vol. XXX, pp. 515-516, 1884). Compare 

 the review by H. Fischer in Archiv fur Anthropologic, Vol. XVI, 1886, pp. 241-243. 



