October 7, 1892,] 



SCIENCE. 



203 



We must then conclude that, for reasons sufficient to them- 

 selves, the former occupants of the Champlain Valley did not 

 fashion many of their implements or ornaments from the bones 

 of the animals which they captured, although we must admit 

 that the few specimens found do not fairly represent the entire 

 stock of such objects which were made and used. 



After collecting in this region for more than fifteen years with- 

 out seeing a single specimen of worked bone, the first one made 

 its appearance near an old village-site, while I was digging out 

 some bits of pottery from beneath a pine stump. It was only a 

 tine of a deer's antler, the surface of which had been smoothed, 

 and a rudely cut groove was about the large end, as if to enable 

 the owner to fasten a cord for suspending the object as an 



Fig, 1. 



ornament. So little- wrought a specimen would attract little 

 attention usually, but it was taken associated with stone 

 implements, from beneath a pine stump, and was our first of 

 its kind, and therefore possessed especial value. It is 

 white and somewhat chalky in appearance ; but I do not 

 suppose it to be necessarily of great age, though not very recent. 

 This specimen is about four inches long and three-fourths of an 

 inch in diameter at the larger end. A second and shorter tine 

 was recently found in another locality. The point of this is 

 smoothed, and it may have been used in the decoration of the 

 pottery which was so commonly used, and which was most fre- 

 quently ornamented with lines, grooves, and the like, made by a 

 more or less blunt point drawn across the unbaked surface of the 

 jars. The most perfectly made and finished point found in Ver- 

 mont is shown full-size in Fig. 1. It is made from a fragment of 

 a tibia, or some other round bone, and nearly the whole surface. 



except the groove of the medullary canal, is well smoothed, and 

 the pointed end is exceedingly well finished. This specimen was 

 found not far from Burlington, and with it were fragments of 

 bones, a canine of a bear, as well as stone implements. From 

 the simple unornamented objects, such as those just mentioned, 

 to such as that shown in Fig. 3. is a long step, but we have noth- 

 ing intermediate. The specimen shown in Fig. 2 is, as the figure 

 shows, bi-oken along the upper and lower edge. Whether it 

 originally was made from an entire section of a round bone, or 

 was merely a fragment as we have it, is not readily determined. 

 If fractured since it was ornamented, the breaking is not recent. 

 It may have been a whistle, or tube for some other use. 



As to the decoration, a glance at the figure will give a better 

 idea of that than any description. The lines are sharply incised 

 and quite regular, although the tool by which Ihey were made 



now and then went a little astray, and the whole efi'ect is very 

 neat. The ends are smooth and somewhat bevelled or rounded. 

 The length of this specimen is a little less than three and a half 

 inches, and the greatest width three-fourths of an inch. It was 

 found near Swanton, not far from the Canada border. 



Another, and, if genuine Indian work, very interesting speci- 

 men is a mask made from a piece of a femur or some thick bone. 

 The face is boldly and not unskilfully carved, the features all 

 of them being strongly marked. It was found buried in the 

 earth, not far from the specimen figured above, near Canada, and 

 may quite possibly be the work of a passing hunter or soldier; 

 and it is also, and perhaps equally, possible that it was carved by 

 one of the St. Francis Indians, who formerly roamed about the 

 region where it was found. It is apparently not very ancient. 

 The face is oval, an inch and three-eighths long, and one and one- 

 eighth wide, and, including the rather prominent nose, five-eighths 

 of an inch thick. 



The list here given is certainly very meagre, but it includes all 

 kinds that have been found, and its brevity simply emphasizes 

 the rarity of such objects in Vermont. 



ON THE INTROSPECTIVE STUDY OF FEELING. 



BY HIRAM M. STANLEY, LAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, ILL. 



Of all the sciences psychology is, perhaps, the most imperfect. 

 If a science is a body of knowledge obtained by special research 

 and accepted by the general consensus of specialists, then psy- 

 chology is so defective as to scarcely merit the name of science. 

 This want of consensus is everywhere apparent and must especially 

 impress any one who compares the lack of harmony in manuals 

 of psychology with the practical unanimity in manuals 

 of botany, geology, physics, and other sciences. Even in the 

 most fundamental points there is no agreement, as will be evident 

 in a most summary statement. 



It is now something more than a century since the general di- 

 vision of psychic phenomena into intellect, feeling, and will, first 

 came into repute, but still some psychologists of note do not agree 

 to this fundamental classification, but would unite feeling and 

 will in a single order. As to the subdivisions of feeling and will 

 we are confessedly wholly at sea. In intellect it is only on the 

 lower side, sensation and perception, that anything of great sci- 

 entific value has been accomplished ; and even now it cannot be 

 said that the classes of sensation have been marked off with per- 

 fect certainty. In the higher range of intellect psychology can do 

 scarcely more than accept some ready-made divisions from com- 

 mon observation and logic. And if so little has been settled in 

 the comparatively simple work of a descriptive classification of 

 the facts of mind we may be assured that still less has been accom- 

 plished toward a scientific consensus for the laws of mind. 

 Weber's law alone seems to sland on any secure basis of experi- 

 ment, but its range and meaning are still far from being deter- 

 mined. Even the laws of the association of ideas are still the 

 subjects of endless controversy. Also in method there is mani- 

 festly the greatest disagreement. The physiological and intro- 

 spective schools each magnify their own methods sometimes so 

 far as to discredit all others. Physiological method has won for 

 itself a certain standing, indeed, but just what are its limitatioBS 

 is still far from being settled. 



But the grievous lack of generally accepted results is most ap- 

 parent in the domain of feeling. The discussion of feeling in 

 most manuals is very meagre and unsatisfactory. Professor 

 James's recent treatise, for instance, gives some sOO pages to the 

 Intellect, and about 100 pages each to Feeling and Will. There 

 is little thorough analysis and no perfected inductive classification. 

 We often, indeed, find essays of literary value which appeal to 

 the authority of literature. But to refer to Shakespeare or Goethe 

 as psychological authorities or in illustration or proof of psycho- 

 logical laws is generally a doubtful procedure. The literary and 

 artistic treatment of human nature is quite distinct from the sci- 

 entific, and literature and art cannot be said to be of much more 

 value for psychology than for physics, chemistry, or biology. 

 To appeal t'l the Bible or Shakespeare in matters psychological. 



