26 . The American Naturalist. [January, 
ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE ART OF WORKING 
IN STONE. 
By J. D. MCGUIRE. 
A REPLY TO MR. CHARLES H. READ. 
There appeared in the AMERIcAN NatuRAList for Decem- 
ber, 1894, a communication by Mr. Read, one of the keepers. 
of the British Museum, in reply to my paper on working in 
stone. Mr. Read having “given attention to the problem. 
itself” thinks it “necessary to point out the danger that 
lies in the use of improper or irrelevant evidence ;” he 
thinks the paper “so persistent in its pursuit of will-o’the- 
wisps that a better text could scarcely be found.” 
As Mr. Read represents the typical European believer in a 
paleolithic period, as distinguished from the neolithic, and as 
the writer calls in question the correctness of this distinction,. 
it may be well that the public shall have an opportunity to- 
decide who is chasing phantoms. 
Mr. Read himself calls the question a “puzzle,” the writer 
considers it a plain subject having little difficulty of solution. 
The original paper discussed the matter chiefly from a techni- 
cal standpoint and showed, that among European writers on 
the subject there was absolute contradiction, and the greatest 
uncertainty. 
There is nothing in the writer’s paper calculated to mislead 
any one, for where experiment showed a condition, it was- 
stated ; and where an author was quoted, his name was given. 
A great many American archeologists deny that the ques- 
tion is a “ puzzle” as alleged by Mr. Read, although they con- 
fine their expressions to American conditions. The writer has- 
not hesitated after a most thorough investigation to say that 
European authors do not agree even among themselves on the: 
subject. 
In the original paper it was stated “that a person capable 
of chipping out a paleolith after at most, a year or two spent- 
