JANUARY 12, 1912] 
On the basis of facts such as these which 
have been given as examples, and without 
further study or investigation of Ameri- 
ean cultures themselves, it is assumed that 
the Melanesian bow-culture may be traced 
as an essential factor in North American 
civilizations. In the brief discussion of 
the several instances given, it is apparent 
that not only does the writer show too 
slight an acquaintance with the facts re- 
lating to North America, but he violates 
in every case almost, the principle that the 
things compared and found similar if they 
are to prove real relationship, must in 
themselves possess some distinctive char- 
acter, and not be simple and widely dis- 
tributed. Dr. Graebner’s theory, more- 
Over, assumes that these elements of Mela- 
nesian culture reached America by way of 
northeastern Asia and Bering Strait, and 
while this is perhaps not wholly beyond the 
bounds of possibility geographically, it is 
contradicted by practically all historical 
and other evidence and probability. With 
few exceptions there is no evidence that 
cultural elements have passed from Asia 
eastward to America by way of Bering 
Straits, but on the contrary much evidence 
has in the last few years been brought 
forward to show that in fact the reverse 
has occurred, and that American influ- 
ences have passed westward into Asia. 
For North America, therefore, the case 
for the Melanesian bow-culture seems ex- 
tremely weak, and indeed Dr. Graebner 
himself admits that, as compared with 
South and Central America, his evidence 
is scanty. It is necessary thus to examine 
briefly the argument presented for the 
presence of this Melanesian culture in the 
southern continent. At the very outset 
one is, to say the least, surprised to find in 
passing that solely from the occurrence of 
skin cloaks, round huts and coiled bas- 
ketry, the Fuegians are regarded as repre- 
SCIENCE 51 
sentatives of the early Australian culture. 
The willingness here shown to rest conclu- 
sions of far-reaching import on founda- 
tions of such extremely tenuous nature, 
ean not fail, it seems to me, to lead us to 
look with some distrust at the author’s 
other conclusions, and to accept them only 
with great caution. 
Turning, however, to the Melanesian 
bow-culture, the area where this makes 
itself most strongly felt is said to be the 
northern and northwestern part of the 
continent. Here the self-bow of flat cross- 
section is the prevailing type; here in 
Guiana, Venezuela and Colombia the pile- 
dwelling is found; and here pottery 
(simply as such) is said to reach its high- 
est development. In respect to the latter, 
a further instance is given of the author’s 
incomplete acquaintance with the field 
with which he is dealing, in that the dis- 
tribution given for pottery as ‘‘south as 
far as the Gran Chaco’’ wholly ignores 
the well-known fact of its extension to cen- 
tral Chile and far into Patagonia. Simple 
twilled basketry which is well-nigh univer- 
sal throughout the northern two thirds of 
the continent is again brought forward as 
evidence of Melanesian influence, as is the 
use of tobacco and the pipe, the hammock 
and the paddle with cross-handle. Other 
elements noted are communal houses, head- 
hunting and skull-cults, and the use of the 
squatting human figure and the spiral in 
art. Associated with the Melanesian bow- 
culture in Melanesia itself is the so-called 
two-class matriarchal culture, and elements 
belonging to it, in the form of masked 
dances, knobbed clubs, plank canoes, pan- 
pipes and signal-drums are found also in 
South America. The fact that the chief 
center for all these elements of Melanesian 
culture lies in the northern and northwest- 
ern part of the continent suggests, says 
Dr. Graebner, their intrusion from Cen- 
