PREHISTORIC ART. 457 



Prof. F. W. Putnam jjiesc'iited before the American Antiquarian 

 Society in 1880, from the Museum at Cambridge, a series of carved and 

 sawed objects in jade from Mexico and Central America, and his theory 

 of accounting for them was that they had been brought from Asia on 

 the original migration of the peoples; that in after time the communi- 

 cations between the two countries were suspended and gradually 

 ceased. Thus the supply of these objects was cut off, as none of that 

 mineral having been found in that country (either then or since). 

 They came to be regarded of great value as amulets or charms, and 

 were sawed into pieces for a more extended distribution. That such 

 objects belonged to these countries, and that they were divided or cut 

 by sawing and were susceptible of a coriespondingly increased dis- 

 tribution is a fact that can not be denied. The United States iSTational 

 Museum possesses series of such objects in considerable numbers. 

 Plates 39 and 40 represent a tray of them, showing obverse and reverse- 

 The two plates represent opposite sides of the same objects. They 

 will be noticed further when considering lapidary work. 



Ur. Heinrich Fischer, of Freiburg, Baden, supported the migration 

 theory, alleging the great similarity between the Mexican and Central 

 American jadeites and those in Burmah. Dr. A. B. Meyer, of Dresden, 

 attacked the migration theory fiercely and maintained the greater 

 probability of the indigenous character of the mineral. Professors 

 Clarke and Merrill, of the United States National Museum, published 

 a paper ^ on "Kephrite and Jadeite." It consisted largely of chemical 

 and microscopical investigations and determined with great certainty 

 the substantial differences between the minerals. Their conclusions, 

 so far as relates to the migration theory, are as follows: 



That these substauces are comparatively common constituents of metamorpbic 

 rocks, and hence liable to be found anywhere where these rocks occur. Their pres- 

 ence (in any given place) is as meaningless (so far as concerns the migration theory) 

 as would be the finding of a piece of graphite. Their discovery (among prehistoric 

 peoples) possesses no value in the work of tracing the migration or intercommunica- 

 tion of lai es. 



It is not ijossible to determine this jade question positively or abso- 

 lutely. We do not possess sufficient knowledge to solve it finally. 

 Whatever may be at j^resent determined is subject to a reversal by a 

 discovery which may be made at any time in the future. If a jadeite 

 mountain should be found in Mexico or Central America as a nephrite 

 mountain has been in Alaska, it would settle the question at once, but 

 until a ledge or quarry of jadeite shall be found in America the ques- 

 tion must be left in abeyance. The discovery of the place of origin of 

 jadeite in America may never be found, and consequently the question 

 may never be absolutely solved. 



Various efforts have been made to discover jadeite in its natural 

 deposit in Mexico and Central America, but never yet with success. 



iProc. U.S.Nat.Mus.,XI, 1888, pp. 115-130. 



