VIII PREFACE. 



and 353. Electrotypes of Figs. 109, 212, 254, and 255, finally, were sent, with 

 others, by Messrs. F. Vieweg and Son, of Braunschweig. These last-mentioned 

 illustrations are taken from the "Archiv fiir Anthropologie," published by that 

 well-known firm. 



In conclusion, I would say that, whatever may be thought of this work, it 

 will go far to illustrate anew the parallelism in the technical progress of popu- 

 lations totally unknown to each other, and for which only the common bond of 

 humanity can be claimed. The designs of European and North American 

 fishing-implements in this work bear witness to the statement. It will be 

 noticed how slowly man in Europe arrived at the idea of barbing the fish-hook. 

 None of the European hooks of bone or horn figured in this work is properly 

 barbed, excepting the one shown in Fig. 91 on page 71, and this hook may post- 

 date the neolithic period, and pertain to a time during which barbed fish-hooks 

 of bronze were not uncommon. Among the prehistoric American fish-hooks 

 which I was enabled to represent by designs in this publication, only one has a 

 point armed with a barb on the inner side, namely, the deer-horn hook from 

 New York delineated in Fig. 193 on page 128, which, as stated, is supposed to 

 have been made after a European pattern. Yet, I would not venture to say that 

 barbed fish-hooks had been unknown in America in ante-Columbian times ; I 

 simply state that none have fallen under my notice. Indeed, the halibut-hook 

 of the Northwest Coast, doubtless an old aboriginal invention, may be classed 

 among barbed fish-hooks (Fig. 9 on page 15). 



Further analogies (and also differences) in the character of the prehistoric 

 fishing-implements of Europe and America will easily be discovered by those 

 who peruse the pages here offered. 



SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, CHARLES RAU. 



June, 1884. 



