1895,] On the Evolution of the Art of Working in Stone. 29 
fore, except the writer’s paper on the subject, there does not. 
appear to be any evidence one way or the other. 
Again, Mr. Read asks “ Can Mr. McGuire point out a single 
instance of a polished implement being found on an admitted 
palzolithic site?” If a palaeolithic site is oneon which no 
battered or polished stones are found, No! In compliance, 
however, the writer will cite the upper cave of Wierszchow 
in which a polished celt of diorite was found; in this cave 
were also Ursus spelaeus, Hyaena spelaea, etc., according to 
Dr. Ferd. Rémer, nor is this the only cave by any méans. For 
fear, however, lest the advocates of paleolithic man may say 
this is not an admitted site, we will refer to the bone caves 
of France, admittedly of the paleolithic period. In them 
carved antlers are vonly found, and ivory tusks worked into 
plates ; to shape which required sawing and grinding, work 
similar to that on the typical neolithic implements. The caves. 
of England have produced bone needles ground into shape. 
Many caves of the continent have produced whistles and vari- 
ous other objects of stone, shell, bone and ivory having holes 
bored through them. These articles are all found in Quaternary 
strata, and are referred to by most all archeologists as paleo- 
ithic. To work such material (it being harder than much of 
that of the neolithic period, requiring similar treatment to that 
requisite to produce the neolith) certainly required a similar 
mechanical ability in the people of the earlier when compared 
with that possessed by those of the later period, yet if this be 
admitted, the paleeolithic period thereby collapses. 
It does not savor of fairness for Mr. Read to say the writer 
“is fighting air, to bring a long array of his own experiments 
to prove that palæolithic man ought to have found out what 
he considers the easiest way of making his tools.” If the 
articles quoted above were found where their Europeon authors 
say they were, of which too there appears no doubt, is there 
not something more substantial than “ air” in the argument? 
The statement that “ the fact that paleolithic man overlooked 
the polishing of his implements is a mere accident, a subsidi- © 
ary and incidental peculiarity, and possesses no right to the 
importance it has obtained ” is choice verbiage, but is not argu- 
