558 REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 
Jersey, very numerous on the sites of villages and scattered in 
fewer numbers wherever game had been followed by the dusky 
hunters. These relics as a rule differ in no way from such traces 
of the aborigines found in the middle and northern states. Mr. 
Jones claims, however, that a greater degree of skill is exhibited 
in the workmanship, especially of their arrowpoints, by the 
southern Indians; and we have no doubt but that such was the 
case to a certain extent: that is, that there is obtained in Georgia 
a larger percentage of jasper and quartz arrowpoints, which are 
always more delicately chipped than those formed from softer min- 
erals. We must, however, call attention to the fact that the fifty- 
three illustrations given do not indicate extraordinary skill, nor 
have we a drawing of “almost every known form,” which the au- 
thor says “finds here (in Georgia) its type.” The most interesting 
specimens of stone implements figured by Mr. Jones are the 
sword, pl. xii, fig. 4, the dagger, fig. 3 of same plate, and the axe 
with stone handle, pl. xii. In our own experience in collecting, 
we have never met with any relic resembling them; although we > 
have frequently heard of an axe, with a handle of stone, but 
have always failed to find its present whereabouts. The sim- 
ilarity of our American stone implements to those found in 
Europe makes the dagger peculiarly interesting, as it renders that 
form common to the two countries. 
In describing the pipes, idols and pottery of Georgia, we think 
the author has pretty thoroughly confounded Indian and mound- 
builders’ relics. The idols, ‘‘animals,” pipes and some of the 
vases, we should consider as belonging to the latter people; 
while the plainer pipes and fragments of pottery figured are such 
are abundant throughout the whole country. 
While students of American archeology owe much to Mr. 
Jones for the vast amount of information he has made accessible 
to them, by the publication of his interesting work, we think it 
is to be regretted that the great distinction between mound- 
builders and Indians has not been admitted by him, for having 
had an opportunity in Georgia of carefully studying the many 
traces of each race, the distinction between them, carried out in 
one volume, would have long been a most valuable guide to those 
who, in other portions of the Union, may wrest from destruction 
and preserve to science the rapidly disappearing relics of the 
ancient peoples of America.—C. C. A. 
