26 The American Naturalist. [January, 
for the sake of emphasis will be repeated here. In certain 
shell-heaps at various depths from the surface fragments of 
pottery, which have gradually been decreasing in number, 
entirely disappear, indicating, in the writer’s opinion, the 
inception of the manufacture of pottery during the progress 
of the erection of the heap. The absence of pottery cannot 
be accounted for under the hypothesis of decay, since no 
stratum containing partially decayed sherds is met with in 
any of the river shell-heaps. If the occurrence of shell-heaps 
devoid of pottery is admitted on the St. John’s, and as to this 
a careful investigation can leave no doubt, it would be difficult 
to assign a reason for the absence of this necessity of aborigi- 
nal life, save ignorance of the method of its manufacture,’ and 
assuming this to be the case, there would seem to be no cause 
why certain shell-heaps should not show by internal evidence 
the inception of the art. 
In conclusion, the writer would state as his opinion, that 
while the shell-heaps of the St. John’s have been imperfectly 
explored, and while many interesting questions still remain 
unanswered, but little work will be done in connection with 
them in the near future. The territory to be covered is so 
vast, and the shell-heaps of the upper river are so inaccessible 
that one may well hesitate before undertaking an exploration 
involving so much trouble and expense. Moreover, but little 
is found in comparison with the vast quantities of debris to be 
handled, and the relics of the wretched makers of the shell- 
heaps offer but a poor incentive in comparison to the more 
alluring results to be attained in other portions of the coun- 
t 
"It has been asserted that the absence of pottery in certain shell-heaps is explain- 
able under the hypothesis that the people frequenting the shell-heaps dwelt there for 
but a portion of each year and made the earthenware vessels elsewhere. This seems 
untenable. It matters Itttle where the pottery was made. If possessed by the occu- 
pants of the shell-heaps it certainly would be used there, for numerous fire-places and 
_ broken bones at all depths testify to culinary pursuits. Earthenware is too brittle to 
allow one for an inst suppose that numerous vessels would not be broken as they 
were on so many shell-heaps. Moreover it is difficult to comprehend why some 
shell-heaps should be marked by the manufacture of earthenware, while others give 
no evidence of its production. Rude masses of baked clay and in one case a vessel 
filled with clay unbaked were found by the writer in shell-heaps, 
The conclusion seems difficult to escape that where earthenware is not found, its 
manufacture was unknown. 
- 
: 
= ga Sia 
eae eS ee | 
