438 



ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 195 



restricted to the European Mesolitliic, the related Neolithic of central 

 Asia, and the Ipiutak Eskimo culture in Alaska. They are, therefore, 

 one of the features most strongly indicative of a basic relationship 

 between the Eskimo and Mesolithic-Neolithic cultures of Eurasia. 



Other European Mesolithic features resembling those of prehistoric 

 Eskimo culture are pottery lamps (Mathiassen, 1935), steep-sided, 

 conical-based cooking pots, and barbed bone fish and bird spears 



la 



• so 



a b c a «? / y 



Figure 2. — Side-bladed implements — Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Eskimo, a, &, 

 Denmark (after Madsen). c, Pychma River, District of Kamychlov, Perm 

 (after Tolmachev). d, Ponomarevsk, Angara River, Siberia (after Okladni- 

 kov), e, f, Ipiutak, Point Hope, Alaska (after Rainey). g, Southampton Is- 

 land, Hudson Bay (after Boas). (Not to scale; numbers indicate approximate 

 length in centimeters.) 



(Clark, 1936, fig. 41, pis. 6, 7). Finally, it should be noted that there 

 seem to be significant resemblances between the geometric art of the 

 European Paleolithic and Mesolithic and some of the simpler linear 

 designs of Dorset and early Old Bering Sea art; some of the older 

 Eskimo designs and motifs are actually closer to Paleolithic and 

 Mesolithic art than to later styles in either America or Eurasia 

 (de Laguna, 1932-33; Collins, 1940, 1943). 



