AS PRONG, HOOK, OR BAIT? 83 
gap, thus making a crescent of horn, to the one end of which 
they attached their line, which is exactly what the black 
fellows (in Australia) do to-day with a pearl shell.” ! 
But against this conjecture weighs the fact that as the grain 
of the horn runs from butt to point, if the hook be cut from 
cross-section it would probably break, as the cross-section would 
be across the grain, and so very frayable. If, however, the 
hook were cut from a panel removed from the side of the horn 
and just where the curve comes before the point, the substance 
of the hook might possibly stand. , 
Anticipating and dissenting from Mr. Minchin’s explanation 
are Monro’s note on J/., XXIV. 80 ff., and Professor Tylor’s 
comment in the note. ‘“ The main difficulty in the ancient 
1 Stace 2° STAGE 3% STAGE 
MR. MINCHIN’S EXPLANATION OF képas. 
explanation of the passage is the prominence given to the 
képac, Which is spoken of as if 2¢ were the chief feature of the 
fisherman’sapparatus. The question naturally suggests whether 
the xépac might not be ¢he hook itself, made, like so many 
utensils of primitive times, from the horn of an animal.” 
On this point Mr. E. B. Tylor writes to Monro as follows : 
“Fish-hooks of horn are in fact known in pre-historic Europe, 
but are scarce, and very clumsy. After looking into the 
matter, I am disposed to think that the Scholiast knew what 
he was about, and that the old Greeks really used a horn guard, 
where the modern pike fisher only has his line bound, to pre- 
vent the fish biting through. Such a horn guard, if used 
1 In The Confessions of a Beachcomber, pp. 266-8 (London, 1913), the illus- 
trations of pearl-shell fish-hooks in various stages of completion tend to con- 
firm this statement, while the author, Mr. Banfield, inclines to Mr. Minchin’s 
theory as regards the horn of an ox, 
