446 The American Naturalist. [May, 
ARCHEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY?’ 
The non existence. of paleolithic culture.—There appeared 
in the January number of Tar AMERICAN NaTuRALIsT a criticism by 
Mr. H. C. Mercer of my recent paper “ On the Evolution of the Art of 
Working in Stone,” which induces me to ask for space for an answer. 
My paper in the Anthropologist for July 1893 was necessarily 
restricted, and, although only a preliminary one, had I thought, made 
some points clear in the discussion of paleolithic man which appeared 
to me not to have had particular attention drawn to them. 
Geology, anatomy and prehistoric archeology are all of the greatest 
value in the study of the early history and development of the human 
race, but a study of the technology of archeology, I contended is 
equally important in determining the mechanical status of the race 
at any period of its existence. 
(1) Leontend that “ Teshoa or chip-knife ” making at one blow, or 
making a “turtle back” at twenty blows (if turtle back is all we 
want), may be as easy as, but is not easier, than hammering and grind- 
ing. The present status of archaeological information fully justifies 
the expression of a doubt that either a “teshoa” or “turtle back” is & 
completed instrument. 
(2) That Pottery is recorded as found in the lower European cavé 
strata, (and the authorities who make the assertion are fully sustained) 
“warrants a review of the French classification.” 
(3) “ Why ” Says Mr. Mercer “ men who bored, polished and carved 
bone, sketched realistic designs, and chipped blades equal in make to 
Mexican sacrificial knives did not polish stone, seems incomprehensible. 
But the European museums clearly assert that no polished stone tool 
has been found in the caves. If true, the fact is conclusive against 
Mr. McGuire.” i 
One of the chief points which my paper raised was, that the ability 
to do these things (bone polishing ete.) was sufficient proof of itself a 
those who did them could and did polish stone tools, and further, S% 
polishing required less acquaintance with the fracture of stones; *! 
tools, and less technical ability, than was necessary in chipp™g 
aking stone, and in scraping and etching bone, etc. 
! This department is edited by H. C. Mercer, University of Pennsylvania. 
Bi Se Re ee ee e 
