606 The American Naturalist. [July, 
ANTHROPOLOGY. 
Mr. Keane on Paleolithic Man.—Mr. A. H. Keane in his re- 
cent publication “ Ethnology ” takes serious exception to my denial of 
there having been a paleolithic period, and says“ Paleolithic necessarily 
antedates Neolithic Culture.” In what does this necessity consist? Why 
should Paleolithic precede Neolithic Culture? The names it is true 
signify old and new, but are at best arbitrary, being a suggestion of 
Sir John Lubbock to distinguish a supposed “chipped” from a 
“polished” stone period. Mr. Keane says “ where there is a time 
sequence, the chipped stones being of ruder and simpler formation, nat- 
urally precede the more perfected polished objects.” The proof of a 
“time sequence ” is by no means a settled question, this assertion being 
negatived in one way or another by every writer on Archeology. The i 
chipped stones are not “ruder” than. polished stones, nor are they : 
_*“simpler ” in shape, material or facility with which the shape may be 
given. I have only attempted to discuss the subject from a technical 
standpoint and from the writings on the subject generally, from either 
of these points, however, or from both together I contend my position . 
is sustained. Chipping stone is a more difficult mechanical process than 
grinding and pecking stone, it is more complicated in its minutis, in- 
volving, it is true, blows with a hammer, the difference being that the 
chipper’s blow is of necessity more deliberate, slower and of necessity | 
more accurate than the blow given in pecking. A doubt of the ; 
accuracy of this proposition may be solved by taking a flint anda 
diorite and attempting with any hammer to shape them. If ordinarily 
careful the diorite will be worn into shape, while on the other hand 
the chances are many to one that the flint is destroyed before comple- 
tion. 
Mr. Keane objects that “European archeologists are asked to re- 
consider their own conclusions.” Undue weight being shown to — : 
have been given certain evidence, European archeologists owe it to 
themselves to reconsider their conclusions. Up to a recent period it | 
was believed generally that to shape a Neolith or ground implement : 
was more difficult than it was to shape a Paleolith or chipped imple- | 
ment, and such difficulty was used as the main evidence upon which to : 
support the theory of a chipped preceding a polished stone age. Hav- | 
ing been shown that the contrary was the case, one would presume 
! This department is edited by H. C, Mercer, University of Pennsylvania. 
