. Annual report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution . Handled Knives, from Hupa Reservation, California. Figs. 75, 76, and 77. Haftecl knives, of jasper; wooden handles attached with bitumen. .Cat. Nos. 126537-8-9, U. S. N. M.)Fig. 78. Obsidian knife; wrapped around one end with a strip of otter skin. (Cat. No. 126530, U. S. N. M.)Fig. 79. Elk-horn wedge. See Smithsonian Report, 1886, Part I, Raj collection. Plate XVIII. A STUDY OF PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOLOGY. 641 In the Hupa Valley, northern California, the locality of the implementlast described, we have seen it with a strip
. Annual report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution . Handled Knives, from Hupa Reservation, California. Figs. 75, 76, and 77. Haftecl knives, of jasper; wooden handles attached with bitumen. .Cat. Nos. 126537-8-9, U. S. N. M.)Fig. 78. Obsidian knife; wrapped around one end with a strip of otter skin. (Cat. No. 126530, U. S. N. M.)Fig. 79. Elk-horn wedge. See Smithsonian Report, 1886, Part I, Raj collection. Plate XVIII. A STUDY OF PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOLOGY. 641 In the Hupa Valley, northern California, the locality of the implementlast described, we have seen it with a strip of otter skin for a handle(PI. cii, Fig. 78), but others to the number of six or eight were also col-lected by Captain Eay, which were inserted in a broad wooden handle andfastened with bitumen (PI. cii, Figs. 75, 76, 77). Some were leaf-shapedand some were with a tang; some were found with handle attached, whileothers bore the traces of bitumen, but were without a handle. Theother locality is southern California in the region and islands about Santa. Fig. Implements. Barbaraandtheadjacent portions of Mexico. Here they have been foundin burial places which appear to be, without doubt, prehistoric. Thegreat archseologic interest of these leaf-shaped implements is that inEurope they belong to the paleolithic period, and are the type of theSolutreen epoch. They have been called in France feuille de laurier,laurel leaf. In America but a slight consideration has been given tothem. They have always been considered as Indian, and the possibilityof their belonging to the paleolithic period has never been Mis. 142, pt. 2 41 642 EEPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1888. It would become iutensely interesting if, now that tlie attention of thel)ublic is directed to these implements, they should be found so associ-ated with other paleolithic implements, or with the fauna, or under cir-cumstances which would jioint to their belonging also to the paleolithicperiod. Note.
Size: 1604px × 1558px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1840, bookidannualreportofbo1888smith
