HOLMES ANNIVERSARY VOLUME 



crop determines the location of ford, trail, and petroglyph. The belief 

 that they were made by a cult or tribe that traveled over the coun- 

 try, leaving these glyphs behind them to mark their routes of migra- 

 tion, is interesting. Some Indians think they were left by the Incas 

 and some students of ethnology think they were made by the 

 Arawaks. The latter prove, by the distribution of the glyphs, that 

 these people, coming from their original home in southern Brazil, 

 crossed the Amazon at Itaicoatiari and spread out over the region 

 to the northward, also that they did not occupy the lowlands along 

 the Amazon, nor the great territory of the Purus, Jurua, and Javari 

 rivers. It is true that no petroglyphs have been found in these regions, 

 and it is also true that no rocks are found capable of bearing the 

 glyphs. In the neighborhood of Itaicoatiari is the only outcrop of 

 rocks in the Amazon river for two thousand miles. These simple facts 

 are not allowed to interfere with a good theory. 



If the records of glyphs are to be of any value, they should be 

 carefully copied. They are usually indistinct and can be traced with 

 difficulty. The smooth grooves may sometimes be followed by touch 

 when they cannot be seen. Often it is sufficient to throw water over 

 the rock and get the proper reflection of light to render them visible. 

 The figures should be marked over with clay or chalk, or, failing these, 

 a wax candle will serve very well, as the accompanying photographs 

 will testify. No attempt at copying should be made until the whole 

 group has been outlined. For the copy a light line is sufficient, but 

 for the photograph the whole groove should be marked out to show 

 its width. The photograph, with careful measurements for the scale, 

 gives the best record. It is difficult to draw a faithful copy, however 

 much time is expended. For an example, see the numerous publica- 

 tions of the Dighton rock "inscriptions". Many copies were made by 

 well-trained, educated men, yet no one could possibly recognize the 

 earlier copies from the later ones, or the original from any of them. 

 One author thought them Phenician in origin, another Scythian, and 

 a third Scandinavian, and each copied to suit his own preconceived 

 idea. One's imagination can easily supply the missing line and make a 

 monkey of a man. The camera has a good memory and no imagination. 



No comparative study of petroglyphs from widely separated parts 

 of the world, nor of those in nearby districts has been undertaken here, 

 because it is felt that any attempt at interpretation of even a single 

 group must be futile so long as there are no supporting facts. It is 

 quite evident that many glyphs are not meant to be realistic, and 

 those that are so meant may have very different interpretations. 

 Simple line drawings of animals and men must necessarily resemble 



[94] 



