444 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSP^UM, 1896. 



tioiis between tliese two, natural aud liuinan, are so different, and there 

 is so much dissimilarity, as to invoke different laws. A law of univer- 

 sal ai)plication to one may Lave little or no application to the other. 



It may be (^uite true that in attaining- certain results a man may pro- 

 ceed along the lines of least resistance — that is to say, he may seek to 

 accomplish his purpose with the least exertion or expenditure of force. 

 But his wishes and desires interfere many times to deflect his conduct 

 from this line. Free will, reason, and judgment are disturbing ele- 

 ments in man which, not found in nature, profoundly interfere with the 

 operation of this law. They control his actions and deflect his course 

 far from the line of the least resistance. Primitive man may have 

 desired a knife or point for any one of the many purposes for which 

 knives or i^oints are used — to kill or skin his prey, to cut branches, or 

 what not. Any sharp or pointed piece of flint, a spawl, would serve 

 this i)urpose as well as the more elaborate specimens; yet we have seen 

 that hundreds, if not thousands of times primitive man has not been 

 content with a mere spawl, however sharp and pointed or effective it 

 might be. Its utility alone, however perfect, did not satisfy him. 



It was argued in the early part of this paper, and lias been demon- 

 strated by many illustrations, that prehistoric man had an aesthetic 

 taste or artistic sense which controlled him equally as did utility. 



The flrst chapter of this paper, v/ith the arts therein elaborated, is 

 built on this foundation. The arts of tine flint chipping, of engraving 

 on bone, horn, and ivory, were all dependent on the lesthetic desire 

 natural in man. The line of the least resistance, that is to say, the 

 making of a knife or point with the least expenditure of force, would 

 bave prompted man to have used any spawl of flint or point of bone 

 which could have been made the easiest, provided it would serve the 

 purpose. We have seen that man did not pursue this course; that 

 he was not contented with the rude spawl, however sharp, or the 

 bone fragment, however pointed. His natural desire for beauty, his 

 rt'sthetic taste, his aitistic sense intervened and deflected his course 

 from the utilitarian line of least exertion or resistance. 



It will not do to say that the proposition of the accomplishment of 

 results with the least exijenditure of force as applied to man is devoid 

 of truth or that it has no exceptions. This sweeping declaration would, 

 like the swinging pendulum, carry us too far to the opposite side, and 

 would be e(pially as untrue as the original projiosition. The truth lies 

 midway between the two. Man in many instances seeks to accomplish 

 his end with the least possible exi^enditure. Man proceeds in most of 

 his utilitarian i)rqjects on the lines of least resistance, and so far as 

 utility has aided civilization there might be a foundation for this law. 

 liut art, in this regard is opposed to utility, and it deflects civilization 

 from the lines of least resistance. 



iSTearly all prehistoric art work would have been avoided if the man 

 who made the implements and objects described had proceeded on the 



