-re¬ 
present writer and others regarding the correctness of the pre¬ 
vailing view, hut the strongly entrenched earlier interpretations 
(LIa 
were not easily replaced. It appears that some European anthrop¬ 
ologists have failed to appreciate the necessity of revising their 
early impressions, and there is a suspicion that the shadow of early 
misconception still hangs over European appreciation of the re¬ 
lation of shape to antiquity. Proof of their reliance on mere 
rudeness of shape to determine age and culture is found in the 
very conservative attitude of A. H. Keane who, in his hook "Ethnology" 
republished as paleolithic certain of my illustrations of quartzite 
-1 '\ 
boulder rejects from workshops in the District of Columbia, which 
shops were doubtless occupied by the Algonquian Indians possibly 
not more than four hundred years ago. Mr. Keane was apparently 
unable to free himself from the strongly entrenched prejudice in 
favor of the connection of rudeness cf work and simplicity of form 
with geological antiquity. Today the opposing view very generally 
prevails, and the present writer does not hesitate to affirm that 
up to the present time no shaped stone has been found in America 
