32 
process being continued until an oblong opening was worked through the 
bone, leaving the shank, point, and barb to be worked out by further 
cutting, scraping, and grinding. In the specimen illustrated (Plate I, 
figure 28), the workman set out to make a hook in a slightly different 
manner. First of all he seems to have laid out his work by making the 
faintly scribed longitudinal lines that are seen on either side of the promin- 
ent ridge; the next step appears to have been to remove the superfluous 
bone lying between these lines, as is evidenced by longitudinal marks of 
scraping near and parallel with the scribed line on the right. The making 
of the deep hollow in the front of the lower part may have been a secondary 
operation. The difficulty of removing so much of the bone probably dis- 
couraged the maker and he abandoned the task, to which circumstance 
we owe this instructive specimen. Another blank (Cat. No. VIII-F- 11477) 
shows a further advance. A deep hollow in the lower part has been exca- 
vated half-way through the bone, but a break at the left edge rendered it 
too narrow for the production of the barbed portion and so it was rejected. 
The marks of the whittling or scraping can be plainly seen. One of the 
blanks (Cat. No. VlII-F-11813) differs from the others in having both 
sides excavated, but more so on the hollow than on the rounded side. 
Unless the maker intended to produce a barbless hook the work on this 
blank had proceeded far enough to show that the width was not sufficient 
to permit the forming of the barb, which perhaps led to its rejection. A 
fragmentary blank (Cat. No. VIII-F-138986) is interesting as suggesting 
that in some cases the first undertaking in making a hook w r as to cut a hole 
through the lower part of the blank, then to remove the bone between what 
was to be the shank and the barbed part of the hook by cutting a 
longitudinal groove, or two more or less parallel grooves, and enlarging 
this opening by cutting or whittling. Another broken specimen (Cat. No. 
VIII-F-10066) show's evidence of three successive processes— the prelimin- 
ary flattening by scraping, the cutting of a hole through the lower part, 
and the removal of the superfluous material by whittling. In the frag- 
mentary specimen illustrated in Plate I, figure 29, only the small septum 
remained to be cut away, when w T hat may have been intended to become 
the shank was broken. Another fragmentary specimen had the middle 
portion of the blank removed when it became broken. A hook from a 
broken, unfinished specimen (Cat. No. VIII-F-10362) resembles the hook 
portion of pre-historic European fish-hooks {See Rau, Figures 46 and 48) 
in having a slight, barb-like shoulder on the inside edge, which is due to 
the method of manufacture by first cutting a hole through the blank, as 
already described. A fish-hook found on Cunningham island, lake Erie, 
described and illustrated by Schoolcraft (page 87 and Plate 38, figure 4), 
has a similar barb-like projection. The fragment of a nearly completed 
hook in Plate I, figure 30, show's several stages of manufacture — the cutting 
of a hole through the low r er part by patient whittling, the removal of super- 
fluous material between the shank and the barbed portion by grooving 
with the plow grinder, and the rounding of the low^er end by rubbing. The 
barbed edge shows grooving from both faces, the thin remaining septum 
being then broken. 
