516 RECORD OF SCIENCE FOR 1887 AISD 1888. 



genera?, student; tbe same is true of the hundreds of techuographic chap- 

 ters that have been written. 



Tlie reader may consult with i>rofit The American Manufacturer, 

 Annales des Pouts et Chaussees, Patent-Office Reports, Eeport of the 

 Department of Agriculture, L'Art, English Mechanic, Journal of the 

 Society of Arts, Scientific American and Supplement. 



ARCHEOLOGY. 



Leaving the question of anthropogeny to the biologists the archseolo- 

 gist will still be concerned with primitive man. He desires to know 

 where our race made its debut on this planet, how long ago it was, aiid 

 what was the intellectual and material stock in trade of that lirst man. 



For the study of what M. Collignou calls L'homme avant I'Histoire 

 there is constantly collecting fresh material. 



The geologist and the pahTontologist are the first to take the stand. 

 Mr. W J McGee, of the U. S. Geological Survey, whose especial de- 

 l)artment is the quaternary period, has addressed himself to the strati- 

 graphic question, while the pala'ontology has been discussed by Mar- 

 cellin Boule, and the cotemporaneity of the mammoth and man by J. 

 M. Clarke and H. Howorth, MM. de Puydt and Lohest. 



On the subject of the antiquity of man we have a paper by L. Guig- 

 nard, relating to France; by A. R. Wallace, on the antiquity of man in 

 America; by E. Riviere, on the antiquity of man in the Alps. 



There has been a question agitated between geologists, palfeoutolo- 

 gists, and archaeologists whetiier in cave and other explorations we are 

 to regard the forui and finish of implements, the associated animal 

 remains, or the condition of the strata, to be the best guide to a knowl- 

 edge of the age of the deposit. The case has been pretty thoroughly 

 reviewed by Henry Hicks and Worthington G. Smith. (Nature, xxxvii 

 105, 129, 202.) 



A fresh classification of archaeology is marked by the ai)pearance in 

 Englaud of a new journal, the Arch?eological Review. The range and 

 divisions of th«^ subjects are: (1) Institutional archaeology, which ex- 

 tends the domain of archa-ology into that of sociology. Indeed, every 

 branch of anthropology may thus have its archa-ology. (2) Anthropo- 

 logical archaeology. This is a bad title. It is meant to include biological 

 and technological subjects, the remains of man and of his arts. (3) 

 Folk-lore. The society would iuclude in this the origin of lauguage, all 

 kinds of tales, rhymes, myths, and lore, and the begiunings of philoso- 

 phy. (4) Literature ; that is, the oldest literatures. The society has 

 promised to do one good thing, for which, well done, they will receive 

 the gratitude of all students. They will index all English archa?ological 

 ]uiblications prior to 18SG and current English and foreign archwologi- 

 cal i)eriodicals, and will issue special judej^es to different branches of 

 archaeological research. 



^Dbe British Assooif^fion for the Acjv^-uoement of Science has regulai* 



