1884. ] Anthropology. 955 
and effectually disproves the Mexican origin of many animal forms 
in the mound-pipes, new forms should be described, concerning 
which the author says that they “ must be the offspring of the same 
beliefs and customs and the same culture of the arts of Mexico.” 
The last two papers are by Col. James Stevenson. In themare 
minutely described and profusely illustrated his four thousand 
specimens of stone implements, clay vessels, and objects made 
from vegetal substances, collected in Zuni, Wolpi, Laguna, Acoma, 
Cochiti, Santo Domingo, Tesuke, Santa Clara, San Juan, Canon 
de Chelly, Cuyamunque, Nambé, Pojuaque, Jémez, Silla, Santa 
Ana, Sandia, San Ildefonso, and from Taos. An excellent map, 
locating the Pueblos, both ancient and modern, accompanies the 
per. 
To the archeologist this collection will have great value, but it 
will still more impress the student of the unfolding of culture. 
The curious blending of old ideas with new ones is everywhere 
manifested, and the enormous amount of material will furnish data 
for sound comparisons. 
Anthropologists will thank Major Powell very heartily for this 
1 cen e and wish that the one for 1881~’82 will not be long de- 
aye i 
-ru AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN.—The third number of Vol. v1 of 
“us standard periodical contains the following papers : 
Ane Bridges of Ancient Rome. . C. Roberts. 
cient Mexican and Cent. American Codices and Inscriptions. By Cyrus Thomas, 
Thc: Polytheism, 11. By F. G. Fleay. : 
‘anslations of the Obelisk in New York. By A. C. Merriam. 
ee Folk-lore and Mythology. By J. Owen Dorsey. 
€matic Mounds. “By S. D. Peet. 
As usual, the correspondence and notes are of great value. 
. +h€ editorial article of the present number is upon relic-hunt- 
Ng Versus archeological survey. The NaturatisT has always 
strenuously held that the most rigid scrutiny by accomplished 
W: rvers should accompany every archæological investigation. 
, Mithout any knowledge of the merits of the present case, the 
