Chapter XXXVII: Conclusions (1)

THE ANCIENT CULTURE-GROUPS

As Major Powell found many linguistic stocks in North America in recent times, so we find quite as many cultures in ancient times. But the language of these people being unknown to us, we must study them through their implements. Some of these are widespread, while others are local. Consider, for instance, the saddle-shaped or bird-shaped stones, of which numbers are illustrated in chapter XXV. These, after great study, one must conclude originated in a certain tribe long ago. It is not proper to call them Iroquois, or Delaware; if they existed in historic times one might be more correct in stating that the Eries, or the Snake People, referred to by the Delawares in their Lenni-Lenape tradition, made and used them. Certainly they are not Iroquoian in character. Their very distribution would indicate that they are a product of Northern people of stone-age culture. As against this the bicave and discoidal stone is of central South culture and not of New England, the North, or West. Under other chapters I have presented some conclusions, and these will not be repeated here. Axes, flint implements, copper (by Mr. Brown), and several other divisions of artifacts have been already separated into their culture-groups. At the present writing there are so many new types on exhibition in public and private collections which formerly were considered products of individual fancy, that it is quite difficult for one to determine the number and extent of the prehistoric cultures in the United States.

However, one must make a beginning. In presenting what appears to me to establish various local cultures, I am quite aware that future observers—when the knowledge of this intricate subject is more widespread—may add or detract from my observations. The cultures mentioned, therefore, must be considered in the nature of pioneer observations, subject to development or change as archæologic knowledge expands and becomes more perfect.

In New Brunswick and Maine and about the mouth of the St. Lawrence there are the ever-present flint implements and chipped objects, and also numbers of slate points, which may be either problematical forms or winged spear-points and arrow-heads. Many of the slate points found by Mr. C. C. Willoughby in graves at Oldtown, Maine, appear to me to be too long and slender to have made effective weapons. Yet they may have served as such. The adze and gouge and the adze-blade celt are numerous in New England. I have commented on the types of chipped objects and how they differ in various sections of the country, so that it is not necessary to re-enter upon a lengthy dissertation on this question.

In New England proper, the region east of the Hudson River, the slate points are not common, and gradually disappear west of the Connecticut Valley. But the adze and the gouge and the long roller pestle abound in numbers. There are also strange effigies of whale, and rude effigies so rough that one does not know what the maker intended to represent. Plummet-shaped stones are also common. But the slate gorget and ornament, and the bell-shaped pestle, the discoidal and bicave, and many other forms, are almost wanting. The pipes are not common and far inferior to those of the Ohio Valley and Middle South and the South. New England, then, may be divided into two culture-groups, that east of the Merrimack River and that lying between the Merrimack and the Hudson. These are related to each other, but differences may be observed.

The next culture-group is that of eastern Canada, north of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. All of this region is marked by Iroquois influence, and the tribes preceding the Iroquois left exceedingly crude and rude handiwork in stone. The forms which may be considered to be pre-Iroquoian are very like those of the Lake Champlain district. A splendid collection of them is on exhibition in the Provincial Museum, Toronto, where Mr. David Boyle labored for many years to bring about the preservation of Canadian antiquities.

Between the Hudson and the line drawn between Buffalo, New York, and Baltimore, there are at least two cultures and indications of one or two more. In northern New York is the famous Iroquoian culture of which so much has been written—and by more competent observers—that I would not dare describe it here.

Suffice it to say that an inspection of the pipes, pottery, bone implements, etc., from Iroquoian graves and village-sites will acquaint one even superficially interested in archæology with the fact that the Iroquoian culture is plainly different from anything else on the American continent. Whether the Iroquois, previous to their famous Hiawatha, were organized and had developed this peculiar art is a question for others to decide. But the freshness of the Iroquoian pipes and pottery and the general tone of the objects—and by tone I mean that appearance which most of them possess—indicate that they show European influence—lead the archæologist to conclude that as to antiquity they are not in the class with the other objects found in America. It has always been my opinion that five or six centuries of time are sufficient to account for their production. None of them look old in the sense that objects from other sites appear old.

In southern New York and throughout New Jersey and Delaware we have chipped and polished implements which are supposed to stand for the prehistoric Delawares, and these types appear, in the main, very old. They are more than weather-beaten, many of them were on the verge of disintegration. Time alone can account for such condition. The Delaware Valley and the Susquehanna must have been ideal places for prehistoric man. In both the climate was not severe; game, nuts, herbs, fish, and other necessities of life abounded. A careful inspection of the work done by Dr. Charles C. Abbott and Mr. Ernest Volk leads me to believe that these men have, beyond question, established that man lived in the Delaware Valley three or four thousands of years ago. Rude axes and peculiar ornaments also abound. The gouge is rare. The adze is scarcely ever found, while the problematical forms are totally different from those of the Middle West and the Middle South. The roller pestle occurs, but it may not be considered a local type. Copper is found in limited quantities, hematite is almost entirely wanting, and effigy pipes are very rare. The Weaves, now and then discovered, may be considered as strays brought in by means of barter or exchange. The projectile points are as a rule slender, and are easily distinguished from those of New England, New York State, or Canada. Jasper, argillite, quartzite, and rhyolite predominate.

The next culture-group is that of central and western Pennsylvania, wherein many New Jersey and New York State types occur. The problematical forms, the black chert, arrow-points, the jasper knives, and the notched hoes or axes may be said to enable one to distinguish this region from other culture-groups of the East, even if they are more or less related. West Virginia may be said to lie on the border-line between Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio. Hematite appears in the valleys of the Kanawha and other streams in West Virginia. The monitor pipes also appear, together with certain forms of axes, spear-heads, and knives which are found in greater numbers in Kentucky and Ohio.

Ohio and Kentucky stand as two separate cultures separated by the Ohio River. Yet the Ohio River was made use of by prehistoric man from above Pittsburg to its mouth at Cairo. Along the stream itself one may discern, on both north and south bank sites, all kinds of cultures, thus proving that the Ohio River was not only a thoroughfare but _the_ thoroughfare in prehistoric times. It is only when one proceeds up the streams from the Ohio back fifty or a hundred miles in Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio that one observes how the local cultures have developed. The culture of the Muskingum and Scioto in Ohio are practically the same; the Miami is different. The Wabash in Indiana is yet another culture and the Illinois yet a third. In Kentucky the Cumberland and Tennessee are in a class by themselves, separate from the others mentioned. These two latter rivers are so long, and as each is navigable far into the State of Tennessee, I feel certain that five or six cultures may be clearly differentiated within their valleys. I have referred to the stone-grave culture of this region elsewhere. It merits further detailed study on the part of archæologists.

In the State of Illinois are long yellow chert spear-heads and lance-heads and knives, some of which have slightly turned points. Many of these are not unlike the Scandinavian daggers. In Michigan and Wisconsin there is a wealth of copper, many of the sugar quartz spears and knives, large numbers of peculiar winged problematical forms which have been quite fully illustrated in this work. The Illinois and Wisconsin cultures are separate and distinct.

Northern Illinois contains types of Wisconsin and Michigan as well as numbers of central Illinois forms. At Sandwich in DeKalb County there is a large collection owned by Mr. Henry W. Franck, who sent me numerous photographs of his exhibit. This collection illustrates the mingling of types of three cultures and is of great archæological importance.

Passing west to the Mississippi in Missouri we have the so-called hematite belt. Along the Missouri River occur great quantities of iron ore, and the natives worked this into hematite axes, celts, plummets, etc. This region of central Missouri appears to be different from southwestern Missouri. Central and western Missouri (outside of the Ozarks) are also different from the cultures bordering along the Mississippi River, or eastern Missouri.

In Kansas and Iowa we have the large notched hatchets which are peculiar to that section of the country, the white flint of Iowa, the dark chert of Kansas, and the minute arrow-heads, the small almost square hand-axes, the profusion of yellow chert and poor jasper hide-scrapers. These are always typical of the buffalo country. But the strangest culture, it seems to me, in America is that of the cave region of the Ozark Mountains, where Dr. Peabody and myself made several investigations. In southwestern Missouri, northwestern Arkansas, and Indian Territory, in both limestone and sandstone formation, are some thirty-five or more natural caverns which had been inhabited by man. In these are great quantities of ashes and debris. Our inspection of four or five of these caves, the study of local collections, and an examination of village-sites in the region revealed the fact that chipped implements of the village-sites are of different stone from those from the ashes in the caverns. That man in the Ozark region had no pipes, no slate articles, no problematical forms, no roller or bell-shaped pestles, no shell ornaments, no copper, no hematite, no celts, no grooved axes, etc. I say none, although in the entire region one slate article, one pipe, and two axes have been found. These may be considered as brought in by later Indians. The chipped implements are rough—save here and there a long, slender, well-chipped object; they are seldom well made. There is a profusion of sandstone mano-stones and mortars. There is every indication that the culture is extremely old and very primitive, as stalagmites have formed (notably in Jacob’s Cavern) over some of the human remains. This Ozark culture, as stated above, was carefully worked out by Peabody and myself, and was found to be an anomaly in American archæology. I am persuaded that there are other and equally peculiar local cultures to be found if one searches diligently.

The Southern culture shows local developments. It is chiefly distinguished by its pottery, which is different in Florida from that of Missouri and from Louisiana. The flint implements also differ, as do many of the types in stone. In Florida stone celts occur, but axes are extremely rare.

In Texas there is peculiar culture, chiefly of chipped implements of a rough sort and small minute arrow-points well made, with little or no pottery, with almost an entire absence of problematical forms, and of copper, little hematite, etc.

Throughout the entire Rocky Mountain chain, from northern British Columbia to the Colorado’s headwaters, is a peculiar “mountain culture.” From this is excepted the Columbia Valley proper, where large pestles occur, also polished paddle-shaped stones, minute chipped objects, and various problematical forms. The mountain chain proper (back from the Coast) is different as to culture, and large chipped discs abound, also short, round pestles, rubbing-stones, hand-hammers, large grooved hammers. Eastern types are entirely wanting, and many of the chipped objects may be distinguished from those of the Coast or the Columbia Valley.

Stone objects in the Rocky Mountains are not very numerous. This is explained on the ground that before the coming of the whites it was not necessary for the Indians to live in the mountains to any appreciable extent. Naturally, they preferred the valleys in the foothills where there was more game. The tribes were driven to the mountains by their enemies. The oldest Sioux have told me (at Pine Ridge) that they never liked to go into the main range of the Black Hills because evil spirits dwelt there.

The cultures in the Colorado basin might be divided into several groups—the Cliff-Dwellers, the Pueblo culture, the Cave-Dwellers, and the boulder ruin people. These might be classified by Dr. Fewkes as all belonging to the same class. I do not know with reference to that, but the implements, the surface indications, and the character of the burials lead me to suppose that the cave people of southern Utah and the boulder ruin people of San Juan Valley were to be considered as distinct from those of the great cliff-houses and of the modern pueblo towns. There is a wealth of material in this region in the way of fine pottery, turquoise beads, delicate chipped implements, shell ornaments and bracelets, etc. We learn much of prehistoric times by exploration in the cliff-houses, for the reason that the climate is exceedingly arid and that the objects are placed back in the rooms where no moisture can penetrate to them, even when it occasionally rains.

Therefore, axes are found in their original handles; wooden tools, throwing-sticks, and baskets, sandals, knives in wooden handles, mats, ropes, and other things that would perish in the North or the South, are preserved. Thus we have splendid opportunity to study how the ancient man mounted and used these various tools, etc.

Dr. Yates and the late Reverend Mr. Meredith have shown in their articles[36] that two separate cultures existed on the Pacific Coast, one in northern, and the other in southern California. In addition to these there is the famous culture of the Columbia Valley, which is somewhat different from others. Numerous figures and the delicate arrow-points in that region have been presented in the foregoing pages. Along the Northwest Coast there is yet another culture.

The Canadian and Utah and Dakota cultures have been described by Professor Montgomery in Chapter XXXV. I have run over these various cultures very rapidly. Much more could be said regarding each one. The finding of different kinds of implements on a given site may indicate different cultures, for it is probable that a favorable site was selected by subsequent tribes after it had been abandoned by the first occupants. This should be borne in mind by students.

THE STONE-AGE POINT OF VIEW

During the Boston meeting of the Anthropological Association, December 27, 1909, at the conclusion of a paper on “Myths of the Cayapa Indians of South America,” by Dr. S. A. Barrett, remarks were offered by several gentlemen, including Dr. Franz Boas. He took occasion to emphasize how important was Dr. Barrett’s work among a people as yet untouched by civilization, and as the point of view of these Cayapa Indians was so different from ours, it was difficult for us to understand their motives and conceptions. All truly primitive people live in a world so apart and removed from our own that one should be able by long study to place himself mentally in that world. Because many observers were not in sympathy with the thoughts of these primitive peoples, and could not forget that they (the observers) were the product of a higher culture, therefore, much misinformation has been disseminated regarding primitive beliefs and customs. Other ethnologists spoke along similar lines.

The above is a truism that every student of prehistoric times should realize, and at the risk of wearying my readers I repeat—and I trust these are not vain repetitions—that we must realize what the term stone age conveys. Nothing that we have in use to-day was known to stone-age man—even so common a thing as fire is confined and changed to suit our will.

Various effigies, polished problematical forms, bright copper, shell or mica, pottery, textile fabrics, and forms in wood—these were the extent of his art. He knew no horizon beyond the stone effigy, the ornamented gorget, etc. A colored stone, piece of copper, or anything in stone unusual attracted his eye. I believe that these appeared to him different from ordinary stones. For the same reason he must have considered hematite as more or less of a mystery. It is very hard to work, and because of its heaviness and the difficulty of reduction to desired shape, one may surmise it appealed to him as a “mystery stone.”

It is clear, from the amount of hematite and copper in public and private collections, that both were highly prized. That hematite was far harder to work than common stone did not deter the ancient man from digging, grinding, cutting, and polishing the steel gray hematites (as hard as any stone) to the desired size. Truly he worked “at his task with a resolute will, over and over again.” I should like to propose to any person who has lightly waved aside the skill or patience of the ancient worker, that that person select a chunk of the hard gray iron ore (not the soft kind) and set to work with a stone hammer and some flint flakes and a block of sandstone to make a hematite plummet. A week’s labor on the specimen will increase the respect of the sceptic for the stone-age artist.

We are just beginning to appreciate the point of view of the stone-age man. At present our knowledge is imperfect. Particularly, do I feel this personally and realize the responsibility resting on one’s shoulders when one attempts to describe and classify, in a large sense, the stone implements, etc., of ancient times. Even if one does one’s best, such a work must, for the present at least, remain a pioneer undertaking, and those who come afterwards will make of the faintly marked pioneer trail a broad and substantial highway along which others may travel and find, I trust, guide-posts unnecessary.

When we realize the point of view, the mind, and the concept of the stone-age man fully, we shall, quite likely, understand the true import of the strange problematical polished stones so common in the Mississippi Valley. These stand for more than mere ornaments. The very name “ceremonial,” which was afterwards changed by that able archæologist Professor Holmes to problematical, is a confession of ignorance. These problematical forms are found in Wisconsin, West Virginia, New England, Louisiana, Ohio, and Arkansas, and although varying through a multitude of shapes, yet apparently convey substantially the same idea. To the people who lived entirely in the stone-age times, these must have represented certain “sacred mysteries,” to white men and later Indians entirely unknown. The same is true of the abnormally large axes in copper or in stone, of the large chipped implements in Tennessee and on the Pacific Coast. None of these things could have served a real purpose. One cannot strike or cut with the “ceremonial swords” shown in Fig. 161, neither can the axe illustrated in Fig. 263 _A_ be made use of for cutting. Such things as these illustrate the height or perfection of stone-age art, and we must seek their explanation and purposes along other lines than those suggested by common every-day usage, to which the smaller and more easily made objects were put.

FIELD STUDY NEEDED

Before concluding my remarks on the stone age in North America, I would call attention to the necessity of more and careful field work, and an understanding of the difference between various sites rather than continued museum work, or the reading of reports and publications. That man who considers arts and crafts of tribes to have been pretty much the same in America is very ignorant concerning real archæology. It has been the purpose of this volume to emphasize differences in the arts and crafts among prehistoric tribes. Archæology is like any other comprehensive subject; it requires study, discriminating care, and enthusiasm. One should further add, it requires inspiration. A man who does not love to hunt specimens for the sake of hunting them has not his heart in the work.

We have had many mounds examined, plans have been drawn, the skeletons carefully set down as so many feet from each other. A report is published in regard to that mound, and instead of intelligent observations on the meaning of the evidence ascertained, there is usually nothing but a dry and statistical statement of the distances of the skeletons from a given point. Of course it is necessary to make a survey of mounds and other remains. And it is equally important to have reports, but I do not think that it is necessary to publish field notes—which are no more than survey notes—and call them a report. Many of the reports published in recent years have missed the essential thing in American archæology. They have emphasized the mathematical features of our explorations. They are as if one published tabulated census reports, but offered no explanations as to what the number and assembling of the people in the United States meant. If no conclusions of value are to be drawn from the exploration of a given site, then it seems to me that wealthy people who send out expeditions are wasting their money, and the scientists their time. We are training young men in our universities and museums to measure mounds and village-sites very carefully. All this is eminent and proper, but we are losing sight of the meaning of those same village-sites and mounds and their relation to others and to prehistoric culture in general.

The explorer Stanley made a statement in his work “Darkest Africa,” which I have never forgotten. The scientist Emin Bey was much interested in examining a human skull and measuring it very carefully and setting down the measurements. Stanley was not interested in the skull. He wished to know something regarding the life of the man to whom it once belonged. If some of our students would, for a few years, lay aside cameras, ground-plans, tape-lines, and get down to real field work, much more progress would ensue. The study of sites, collections, types, and local conditions should be placed first, it seems to me.

In _Science_, April 15, 1910, there appeared an open letter written by Professor B. C. Gruenberg of De Witt Clinton School, New York, along the very lines I have indicated. I quote a paragraph:—

“We all know that there can be no true science that does not rest solidly upon facts. But the thought must often occur to many of us that there is some danger, especially among the younger scientists, that we may become obsessed with an exaggerated sense of the value of facts as such. Is there not too much emphasis laid by many professors in charge of research students on the mere accumulation of observational, statistical, or experimental facts, with too little attention to that side of science which concerns itself with those analytical and synthetic processes that convert facts into valuable ideas? It seems to me that this latter kind of work needs at the present time at least as much encouragement as the other. Of course, there is the possibility for ‘thinking’ to degenerate into profitless speculation; but we are certainly as much in need of the results of thinking about the facts already accumulated as we are of more facts.”

Such studies as those of Professor Holmes on pottery and quarries; such explorations as Mr. C. B. Moore’s in the South; the work done by Volk and Abbott in New Jersey, where they very carefully set aside the argillite and the quartzite and chipped implements as found in different places under different conditions; such work as Professor Mills has done in Ohio in differentiating the Hopewell and the Fort Ancient culture, are things that will count, and works that will stand. A surveyor should measure mounds, number skeletons, and draw plans. The librarian should read reports and compile statistics, but it requires a real archæologist to do the work that I have referred to above.

Squier and Davis, whose “Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley” may be justly considered our standard work upon the mounds, not only explored, but they drew conclusions which, with here and there an exception, or a slight change, will stand at the present time. For many years Dr. Cyrus Thomas used all the tremendous energies of the Bureau of Ethnology to dispute the statements of those hard-working, painstaking, philosophical pioneers Squier and Davis. To-day we know that the culture they described is different from the Shawano, Cherokee, or other cultures which Thomas wished to establish in the Ohio Valley. The work of that distinguished citizen of Illinois, George Sellars, will bear comparison with the work of any other man since his day in the study of chipped flint objects, and if any one doubts the statement let him read and ponder upon Sellars’s complete narrative in the Smithsonian Report for 1885, and then read what has been said since by others.

Aside from the technical study of American archæology, there is a certain charm and fascination in investigation of these ancient remains. Although it has been thirty years since I found my first arrow-head, I never cease to feel a thrill of pleasure when, walking about the shores of lakes or streams, I happen to find one of these evidences of the real and the simple life. One’s mind, if he is inclined to dwell upon prehistoric times in America, naturally reverts to the past under such circumstances, and I close this work with a quotation from Dr. Abbott’s recent publication, “When as many a day has drawn to its close, while yet I lingered in the field and every sign of white man’s industry faded from view, the scattered trees became again a forest, the cry of the cougar and bleat of the fawn were heard, the bark of the fox and howling of the wolf filled the air, a lurid light of a camp-fire lit the sky; the days of the Indian had returned, nor did the illusion pass away until homeward bound, my hand was on the latch.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

For obvious reasons this bibliography is not complete; to make an exhaustive catalogue of the titles dealing with the stone age in America would require the inclusion of many articles in out-of-the-way periodicals and newspapers that are now lost or out of print; in the next place, if made complete, even within the limits of possibility, such a list would require a separate volume out of all proportion to the dimensions of the present work.

In view of these facts, therefore, the attempt has been made, first, to give the publications to which reference has been made in the text; second, to present a list of general works of standard reputation, most of which are provided either with indexes or tables of contents raisonnés; third, to give some of the more important series of publications of individual authors dealing especially with excavations whose results are germane to the matter of the volumes; and fourth, to set forth a classified list of references by the use of which a student can at least learn something about the desired subject and at the same time may receive suggestions as to the methods and the literature necessary to further research.

In view of the change in archæological processes and opinions that has often occurred in a comparatively short space of time, the arrangement of the titles is made as a whole in chronological order.

GENERAL WORKS

=Catlin, G.= North American Indians. New York. 1841.

=Squier, E. G., and Davis, E. H.= Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi
Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, I. 1847.

=Squier, E. G.= The Serpent Symbol. New York. 1851.

=Baldwin, J. D.= Ancient America. New York. (1871.)

=Foster, J. W.= Prehistoric Races of the United States. Chicago. 1873.

=Jones, C. C.= Antiquities of the Southern Indians. New York. 1873.

=Abbott, C. C.= The Stone Age in New Jersey. Report of the Smithsonian
Institution, 1875, pp. 246–380. 1875.

=Wyman, J.= Fresh-Water Shell Mounds of the St. John’s River, Florida.
Peabody Academy of Science, Fourth Memoir. Salem. 1875.

=Abbott, C. C.= Palæolithic Implements in the Valley of the Delaware
River. Peabody Museum Report, 10, pp. 30 ff. 1877. Peabody Museum
Report, II, pp. 225 ff. 1878.

=Conant, A. J.= Footprints of Vanished Races. St. Louis. 1879.

=MacLean, J. P.= The Mound Builders. Cincinnati. 1879.

=Evers, E.= Ancient Pottery of South Eastern Missouri. St. Louis
Academy of Science. 1880.

=Short, J. T.= The North Americans of Antiquity. New York. 1880.

=Whitney, J. D.= The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of
California. Contributions to American Geology, vol. II. Cambridge.
1880.

=de Nadaillec, Marquis.= Pre-Historic America. Translated by N.
D’Anvers. New York. 1884.

=Mercer, H. C.= The Lenape Stone. New York. 1885.

=McAdams.= Records of Ancient Races. St. Louis. 1887.

=Shepherd, H. A.= Antiquities of the State of Ohio. Cincinnati. 1887.

=Read, M. C.= Archæology of Ohio. Cleveland.

=Wilson, T.= Palæolithic Period of the Stone Age. Report of the United
States National Museum, 1888, pp. 677 ff. 1888.

=Thruston, G. P.= Antiquities of Tennessee. Cincinnati. 1890.

=Fowke, G.= Stone Art. Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, pp. 57
ff. 1891–92.

=Wilson, T.= Primitive Industry. Report of the Smithsonian
Institution, 1892, pp. 521 ff. 1892.

=Berlin, A. F.= Lehigh Island and its Relics. The Archæologist, 1,
Jan., 1893, pp. 13 ff. 1893.

=Nordenskiöld, G.= The Cliff-Dwellers of the Mesa Verde. Stockholm.
1893.

=Schmidt, E.= Vorgeschichte Nordamerikas. Braunschweig. 1894.

=Wilson, T.= The Swastika. Report of the United States National
Museum, 1894, pp. 763 ff. 1894.

Prehistoric Art. Report of the United States National Museum, 1896,
pp. 325 ff. 1896.

Arrow-Points, Spear-Points, and Knives. Report of the United States
National Museum, 1897, I, pp. 811 ff. 1897.

=Thomas, C.= Introduction to the Study of North American Archæology.
Cincinnati. 1898.

=Dellenbaugh, F. S.= The North Americans of Yesterday. New York. 1901.

=Fowke, G.= Archæological History of Ohio. Columbus. 1902.

=Lewis, A. B.= Tribes of the Columbia Valley and the Coast of
Washington and Oregon. Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. I, pp. 147 ff. Index and Bibliography.
1905–1907.

=Abbott, C. C.= Archæologia Nova Cæsarea. Three Pamphlets. Trenton.
1907–8.

=Mills, W. C.= Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Vol. I, 1907.
Vol. II, Part 1, 1909.

=Barrett, S. A.= The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring
Indians. University of California Publications in American
Archæology and Ethnology, vol. 6, no. 1. Bibliography and Map.
1908.

=Randall, E. O.= The Masterpieces of the Ohio Mound Builders.
Columbus.

=Boas Anniversary Volume.= New York. 1906.

=Putnam Anniversary Volume.= New York. 1909.

=Moorehead, W. K.= See last pages of Bibliography for titles.

WORKS MORE PURELY OF GENERAL REFERENCE

=de Mortillet, G. and A.= Musée Préhistorique. Paris. 1881.

=Evans, Sir John.= Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain. London.
1897.

=Hodge, F. W.= Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Part I.
Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, no. 30, part I. 1907.

=Forrer, R.= Reallexikon der Prähistorischen, Klassischen und
Frühchristlichen Altertümer. Berlin and Stuttgart. 1907.

=Schlemm, J.= Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte. Berlin. 1908.

=Déchelette, J.= Manuel d’Archéologie, I. Paris. 1908.

SERIAL REFERENCES TO THE WORKS OF INDIVIDUALS

=Boyle, D.= Compare the Archæological Reports of the Province of
Ontario, being parts of the Appendices of the Reports of the
Minister of Education of Ontario. Toronto, from 1887.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= Aboriginal Chipped Stone Implements of New York.
Bulletin of the New York State Museum, vol. 4, no. 16. 1897.

Polished Stone Articles used by the New York Aborigines. Bulletin of
the New York State Museum, vol. 4, no. 18. 1897.

Earthenware of the New York Aborigines. Bulletin of the New York
State Museum, vol. 5, no. 22. 1898.

Aboriginal Occupation of New York. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, vol. 7, no. 32. 1900.

Wampum and Shell Articles used by the New York Indians. Bulletin of
the New York State Museum, vol. 8, no. 41. 1901.

Horn and Bone Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the
New York State Museum, no. 50. 1902.

Metallic Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New
York State Museum, no. 55. 1902.

Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New York
State Museum, no. 73, Archæology 8. 1903.

Perch Lake Mounds. Bulletin of the New York State Museum, no. 87,
Archæology 10. 1905.

Aboriginal Use of Wood in New York. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 89, Archæology 11. 1905.

Aboriginal Place Names of New York. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 108, Archæology 12. 1907.

Civil, Religious, and Mourning Councils, and the Ceremonies of
Adoption of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 113, Archæology 13. 1907.

Erie Village and Burial Sites. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 117, Archæology 14. 1907.

=Mills, W. C.= Compare the following references to the Ohio
Archæological and Historical Quarterly:

Vol. VIII, pp. 309 ff. Field-Work.

Vol. XIII, pp. 129 ff. Gartner Mound and Site.

Vol. XV, pp. 45 ff. Baum Site.

Vol. XVI, pp. 113 ff. Harness Mound.

Vol. XVIII, pp. 269 ff. Seip Mound.

=Moore, C. B.= Compare the following references to the Journal of the
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia:

Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John’s River, Fla. Part I. 1894.

Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John’s River, Florida. Part II. 1894.

Certain River Mounds of Duval County, Fla.

Two Sand Mounds on Murphy Island, Fla.

Certain Sand Mounds of the Ocklawaha River, Fla. 1895.

Certain Sand Mounds of the Georgia Coast. 1897.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Coast of South Carolina.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Savannah River.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Altamaha River.

Recent Acquisitions.

A Cache of Pendant Ornaments. 1898.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Alabama River. 1899.

Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast. 1900.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the North West Florida Coast. Part I.
1901.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the North West Florida Coast. Part II.
1902.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Tombigbee River. 1901.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of Florida Central West Coast.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Apalachicola River. 1903.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Black Warrior River.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Lower Tombigbee River.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound.

Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida. 1905.

Moundville Revisited.

Crystal River Revisited.

Mounds of the Lower Chattahoochee and Lower Flint Rivers.

Notes of the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. 1907.

Certain Mounds of Arkansas and Mississippi. 1908.

Antiquities of the Ouachita Valley. 1909.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BY SUBJECTS

ADOBE.

=Hodge, F. W.= The Archæologist, vol. III, p. 265. 1895.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 302. 1897. (Adobe balls.)

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 205.
1905.

ADZES.

=Crosby, H. A.= Wisconsin Archæologist, July, 1903, pp. 91 ff.
“The Triangular Stone Adze.” 1903.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 298
ff. 1906.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., pp.
296 ff. “New England.” 1907.

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

=Rau, C.= Arch. für Anthropologie, vol. 14, pp. 1–9. A general
paper. 1870.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, July, 1898, pp. 177–8.
1898.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp.
129–130. “New England.” 1906.

ALTARS.

=Putnam, F. W.= Kansas City Review, vol. VII, no. 1, pp. 32 ff.
Ohio. 1883.

=Gordon, G. B.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. I, 1, p. 15.
Copan, Honduras. 1896.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 129.
Tusayan, 1897.

American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., p. 215. 1901.

=Maler, T.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. IV, nos. 1 and
2. Guatemala. 1908.

AMULETS.

=Bourke, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 61. 1890.

=Wilson, T.= Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1891, pp. 144–6.
1891. Bellucci Collection.

=Farrington, O.= Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1900, pp. 199
ff. 1900.

=Hough, W.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1901,
p. 344. Arizona. 1901.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 679.
West Indies. 1903.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, vol. 25, p. 138. Porto
Rico. 1903–4.

=Hamy, E. T.= Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris,
n. s. 2, pp. 323 ff. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= See Science, Oct. 29, 1909, pp. 613, ff.
Ontario. 1909.

See American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p. 470. 1909.

ANCHOR STONES.

=Rau, C.= Prehistoric Fishing, pp. 94 and 192. 1884.

ANKLETS.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Primitive Man in Ohio, p. 110. 1892.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pl. XXXIV.
North Dakota. 1906.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 37. Manitoba.
1908.

ARGILLITE.

=Abbott, C. C.= Archæologia Nova Cæsarea, etc. (Often.)

ARROWS.

=Van Epps, P. M.= American Antiquarian, 1880, p. 57. New York.
1880.

=Rau, C.= Prehistoric Fishing, pp. 56, 83, and 293. 1884.

=Nissley, J. R.= American Antiquarian, 1886, p. 301. Ohio and
Illinois. 1886.

=Smith, H. I.= American Antiquarian, 1889, pp. 249 ff. Michigan.
1889.

=Murdoch.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 64. Glass Arrows.
1890.

=Bourke, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 56. Apache.
1890.

=Mason, Holmes, Hoffman, Hough, Wilson, Flint, Bourke.= American
Anthropologist, vol. 4, pp. 45 ff. A symposium. 1891.

=Dorsey, J. O.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, p. 286.
Omaha. 1891–2.

=Hoffman.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 14, pp. 275 ff.
Menominee. 1892–93.

=Hoffman.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 39. Poisoned Arrows.
1893.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, plates
XXXII-XLVII. 1893–94.

=Waddell, L. A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 94. 1895.

=Cushing, F. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pp. 307 ff.
Bows and Arrows. 1895.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1896,
pp. 325 ff. “Prehistoric Art.” 1896.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 161.
Eskimo. 1896–97.

=Snyder, J. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 231. 1897.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 26.
Distribution. 1897.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1897,
I, pp. 811 ff. A general discussion. 1897.

=Poole, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 45. 1898.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., p.
431. Antler-pointed Arrows. 1901.

=Wilson, T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., pp. 513 ff.
1901.

L’Anthropologie, 12, pp. 568 ff. A classification. 1901.

=Williston.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 335.
Kansas. 1902.

=Moore, C. B.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 40.
Florida. 1902.

=Dorsey, G. A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 644.
1903.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. IV, p. 142. British Columbia. 1903.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 99. Field Columbian Museum, pp. 1
ff. Cheyenne. 1905.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, p. 114. 1907.

=Herrmann, R.= Records of the Past, 1907, pp. 79 ff. Upper
Mississippi Valley. 1907.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 150. 1907.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. IX, n. s., p. 125.
1907.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, pp. 65 ff. 1907.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, pp. 259 ff. 1908.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. II, pt. 3, p. 227. Nez Percé. 1908.

=Straley, W.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 263. Nebraska. 1908.

ARROW-SHAFT STRAIGHTENERS.

=Ehrenreich, P.= Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1900, I, pp. 15 and
24. Ohio and California. 1900.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. 17, 3. p. 134. California. 1905.

ART.

=Whittlesey, C.= American Antiquarian, vol. 3, p. 13.
Ethnography. 1880.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 179 ff.
Art in Shell. 1880–81.

Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 437 ff. Ceramics. 1882–83.

Transactions of the Anthropological Society, Washington, vol. 2,
pp. 94 ff. Shell. 1883.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, pp. 195 ff. Textile Art.
1884–85.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, pp. 13 ff. Chiriqui.
1884–85.

=Putnam, F. W.= Bulletins of the Essex Institute, vol. XVIII, pp.
155 ff. Conventionalization. 1887.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, pp. 9 ff.
Textile Art. 1891–92.

=Fowke, G.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, pp. 49 ff.
Stone Art. 1891–92.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, 1893, p. 307. Stone Art.
1893.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1893, pp. 291 ff. The Processes. 1893.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, pp. 1 ff. The Potomac
Region. 1893–94.

=Putnam and Willoughby.= American Association for the Advancement
of Science, vol. XLIV, pp. 302 ff. 1896.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1896,
pp. 325 ff. 1896.

=Boas, F.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, IX,
pp. 123 ff. North Pacific Indians. 1897.

=Wilson, T.= American Archæologist, 1898, pp. 281 ff. 1898.

=Wissler, C.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 340.
1902.

=Boas, F.= Popular Science Monthly, vol. LXIII, p. 481 ff. 1903.

=Wissler, C.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
1904, pp. 231 ff. Sioux. 1904.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California,
vol. 2, 3, p. 159. California. 1904–07.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania,
vol. 1, 3, pp. 132 ff. Serpent Motive. 1905.

=Holmes, W. H.= Boas Anniversary Volume, pp. 179 ff. 1906.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. 2, 3, p. 233. Nez Percé. 1908.

ATLATLS.

=Bahnson, K.= Archiv für Ethnographie, vol. 2, pp. 217 ff. South
America. 1889.

=Seler, E.= Archiv für Ethnographie, vol. 3, pp. 137 ff. Mexico. 1890.

=Rink, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 274. Alaska. 1891.

=Nuttall, Z.= Archæological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody
Museum, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 169 ff. 1891.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 66. California.
1892.

=Montgomery, H.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, pp. 230 ff. Utah. 1894.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 50.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Bushnell, D. I.= Jr. American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 218.
1905.

AXES.

=Stevenson, J.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 375 ff.
Walpi. 1880–81.

=Douglass, A. E.= American Antiquarian, 1880–81, pp. 100 ff. Florida.
1880–81.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, pp. 166 ff. 1892.

=Fisher, A. W.= The Archæologist, vol. III, p. 75. 1895.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, pp. 68 ff. Ontario.
1897.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 21, p. 100. Cliff-Dweller.
1899.

=Peterson, C. A.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 27. Missouri. 1903.

Records of the Past, 1903, p. 351. Iowa. 1903.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 28, p. 227. 1906.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 145. 1907.

=Gesner, A. T.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 243. Minnesota. 1908.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 633. 1908.

BANNER-STONES.

=Fountain, G. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 186. 1898.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, pp. 201 ff. 1898.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 26. Distribution.
1897.

=Robinson, C. H.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1908, p. 134. 1908.

BASALT.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 169. 1892.

BASKETRY.

=Swan, J. G.= Smithsonian Contributions, XVI, p. 45. Cape Flattery.
1870.

=Montgomery, H.= American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1889, p. 343. North Dakota. 1889.

=Matthews, W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, p. 202. Navajo. 1894.

=Dixon, R. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, n. s., pp. 266 ff.
1900.

=Farrand, L.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, pp.
391 ff. Salishan. 1900.

=Holmes, W. H.= Anthropological Studies in California, pp. 155 ff.
1900.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 22, pt. 1, p. 98.
Pueblo. 1900–01.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., pp. 109 ff.
1901.

=Stevenson, M. C.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 23, p. 373.
Zuñi. 1901–02.

=Pepper, G. H.= Journal of American Museum of Natural History, vol.
II, no. 4, Suppl. p. 22. Utah. 1902.

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1902, pp.
171–548. A general paper. 1902.

=Emmons, G. T.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. III, Anthropology II, pp. 229. 1903.

=Goddard, P. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 1,
no. 1, p. 38. Hupa. 1903–04.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 2,
no. 4, pp. 106 ff. 1904–07.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, Pt. 3, pp. 145 ff. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pp. 644 ff. Dakota.
1906.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, pp. 168 ff. 1907.

=Speck, F. D.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 109. Creek. 1907.

Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, pt. 2, p.
160. Osage.

=Hough, W.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 35, p. 24.
South-Western Culture. 1907.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, p. 353. 1908.

=Harrington, M. R.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 410. Lenape.
1908.

=Barrett, S. A.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 7,
no. 3, pp. 136 ff. Pomo. 1908.

=Kissell, M. L.= Science, Dec. 24, 1909, p. 933. Classification. 1909.

=Speck, F. G.= Anthropological Publications, University of
Pennsylvania, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 31. Yuchi. 1909.

BEADS.

=Henshaw, H. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. III, p. 104. 1890.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, p. 61. 1892.

=Hoffman, W. J.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 14, p. 267.
1892–93.

=Smith, H. I.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 52. Michigan. 1893.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 108. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Richmond, J. F.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, 1907,
p. 448. Florida. 1907.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
VIII, 2, p. 63. Cahuilla Indians. 1908.

BIRD-STONES.

=Moorehead, W. K.= The Birdstone Ceremonial. A general discussion.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 8, i, pp. 5 ff. Wisconsin.
1909.

BLANKETS.

=Pepper, G. H.= The Making of a Navajo Blanket. New York. 1902.

BOBBINS.

=Berlin, A. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 172. 1897.

BODKINS.

=McGuire, J. G.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1894,
pp. 623 ff. Primitive Drilling. 1894.

BONE AND BONE IMPLEMENTS.

=Rau, C.= Prehistoric Fishing, pp. 7, 13, 46, 120, etc. 1884.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Fort Ancient, p. 43. 1890.

=Howe, G. L.= The Archæologist, vol. II, p. 254. California. 1894.

=Mason, O. T.= International Congress of Anthropology. Chicago, p. 73,
1894.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, II,
Anthropology, I, no. III, p. 134. 1899.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 22, I, p. 93.
Pueblo. 1900–01.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., p. 121.
Perforators. 1901.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, n. s., p. 120. Indian
Territory. 1902.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.
4, p. 171. (Anthropology, III, IV.) British Columbia. 1903.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 192. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Peabody, C., and Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin of Phillips Academy, I,
p. 18. Jacobs Cavern, Missouri. 1904.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, 2, p. 50.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Smith, H. I.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
1904, p. 197. Washington, State. 1904.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 140. California. 1905.

=Sinclair, W, J.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
2, I, p. 12. Potter Creek Cave. 1904–07.

=Wintemberg, W. J.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 271. Attiwandarons.
1905.

=Gesner, A. T.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 366. Mandans. 1905.

=Will, G. F., and Spinden, H. J.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol.
3, pt. 4, p. 172. Mandans. 1906.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol.
2, I, p. 103. Ohio. 1906.

=Merriam, J. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 224.
Caves of California. 1906.

=Putnam, F. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 229 ff.
Caves of California. 1906.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 648.
Dakota. 1906.

=Boas, F.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.
15, pt. 2, pp. 383 ff., and frequently. 1907.

=Barbour, E. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, pp. 44 ff. 1907.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 156. Nebraska Loess.
1907.

=Hough, W.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 35, p. 23. South
West. 1907.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, p. 68. Wisconsin Caches.
1907.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 189. Nez Percé. 1908.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin of the Phillips Academy, Andover, 4, p.
98. Fort Ancient. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 173. Northern Shoshone. 1909.

BOWLS.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 257 ff.
Pueblo. 1882–83.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 360 ff. Mississippi
Valley. 1882–83.

=Smyth, S. G.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 340. Pennsylvania. 1905.

=Will, G. F., and Spinden, H. J.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol.
3, 4, p. 116. Mandans. 1906.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin of the Phillips Academy, Andover, no. 3,
pp. 47 ff. Chaco. 1906.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., pp. 423
ff. Wooden Bowls of the Algonquins. 1908.

BOWS AND ARROWS. (See also under ARROWS.)

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1893, pp. 631
ff. General North American discussion. 1893.

=Frisbin, J. S.= The Archæologist, vol. I, p. 70. 1893.

=Knight, E. H.= A Study of Savage Weapons, p. 74.

=Goddard, P. E.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 1,
1, p. 32. Hupa. 1903–04.

=Mylius, E.= Archiv für Anthropologie, N. F. III, pp. 219 ff. The
Theory. 1905.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol.
2, pt. I, p. 79. Eskimo. 1906.

=Wissler, C.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 50. The Medicine Bow. 1907.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 81.
Virginia. 1907.

=Sapir, E.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 272. Oregon. 1907.

=Harrington, M. R.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 414. 1908.

=Dixon, R. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 213. California.
1908.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. I, pt. 4, p. 150. 1908.

=Sparkman, P. S.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
8, 4, p. 205. Luiseño. 1908.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, p. 261. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 192. Shoshone. 1909.

BRACELETS.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 58. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 646. Dakota.
1906.

BUFFALO.

=Allen=, in Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Kentucky, I, pt. II.
1876.

=Chittenden.= Fur Trade. 1902.

=Hornaday=, in Report of the National Museum, 1887, 1889.

=Alvar Nunez Cabeça de Vaca=, Relation of. B. Smith, translator. 1871.

=Winship.= Coronado Expedition, 14th Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology. 1896.

BUFFALO HAIR.

=Bushnell, D. I.=, Jr. American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p.
401. A general discussion. 1909.

BURIALS.

=Yarrow, H. C.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, I, pp. 89 ff. A
general discussion. 1879–80.

=Bahnson, K.= Aarb. f. Nord. Old. og Hist. 1882. Discussion on
America, pp. 125 ff. 1882.

=Montgomery, H.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1889, p. 343. 1889.

American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pp. 640, 641, 642. 1906.

Toronto Globe, August 3, 1878.

=Moore, C. B.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 28. 1902.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, 2, p. 24.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Moore, C. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., p. 660.
Urn-burial. 1904.

=Mills, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 348. Ohio. 1906.

=Pepper, G. H.= Ancient Basket Makers of South Western Utah, pp. 5–7.

=Gardner, W.= American Antiquarian, vol. 31, p. 78. Nebraska. 1909.

CACHES. (Also, see DISCS.)

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, p. 79.
Potomac-Chesapeake Province. 1893–94.

=Volk, E.= Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology,
Chicago, pp. 140 ff. New Jersey. 1894.

=Brown, C. E.= Records of the Past, 1905, pp. 82, ff. Wisconsin. 1905.

“The Implement Caches of the Wisconsin Indians.” Wisconsin
Archeologist, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 47 ff. 1907.

CALENDAR STONE.

=Blake, W. W.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 16. 1903.

CARRYING INDUSTRY.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, 1889, pp. 21 ff. 1889.

CARVINGS.

=Henshaw, H. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 123 ff.
1880–81.

CATLINITE.

=Brower.= “Kansas Explorations,” pp. 33 and 64.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, pp. 168 and 173.
1892.