222 ETHNOLOGY. 



The commission met August 15, and selected M. Capellini chairman. 

 Their first act was to add M. Ernest Chantre to their number. After 

 a long and animated discussion at Stockholm, a subcommission was 

 appointed, consisting of MM. Mortillet and Chantre, to prepare an inter- 

 national code of symbols, taking into account the discussions which had 

 taken place. In addition to this, the commission reserved to themselves 

 individually a i^eriod of three months in which to prepare and send in 

 their own views. 



Papers were sent by MM. Engelhardt, John Evans, Leemans, P. Lerch, 

 F. Eomer, and Edward Dupont, who also transmitted a note from M. 

 Tan der Maelen, author of the Archseological Chart of Belgium. 



Aided by these excellent papers and by the learned discussion at 

 -Stockholm, the subcommission have been able to finish their honorable 

 task. 



They divide their work into three chapters : 

 Chapter I. The Charts. 

 Chapter II. The Symbols. 

 Chapter III. The Colors. 



CHAPTER FIEST. 

 THE CIHAETS. 



§ 1. Sj)ecial charts. 



Wherever it is possible, charts prepare«l especially for the purpose are 

 decidedly preferable. 



Scale. — In choosing the scale for a chart we must be governed entirely 



by the purpose in view. The scale will vary according to the number 



^nd variety of the sites which we design to indicate. Generally, a large 



scale is preferable, because it enables us to multiply the marks of location, 



and to make them more exact and easy of identification by archaeologists 



who wash to visit the monuments and to become acqnainted with the 



facts. The large scale charts are inconvenient, however, in two respects. 



The first is scientific. They cover so little ground, and separate the 



places of discovery so widely, that we are unable at a single glance to 



observe the relations of the parts to the whole. The second is economic. 



In enlarging the scale the price increases rapidly in proportion. This 



naturally diminishes the number of purchasers, and consequently retards 



the progress of science. In choosing our scale wo must bear in mind 



these two facts. If we desire to exhibit a small locality in minute detail, 



a large scale is preferable. If we wish to give a comprehensive view of 



a large district, a small scale is best. In fnlfilling these conditions, other 



things being equal, that scale is best which is most favorable to the pur- 

 chaser. 



Topografphy.—ln an archaeological chart it is not necessary to make the 



