/i ?\
The Old World Paleolithic and the
Development of a National Collection
MICHAEL PETRAGLIA
and
RICHARD POTTS
ILLUSTRATIONS BY MARCIA BAKRY
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY ? NUMBER 48
SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Emphasis upon publication as a means of "diffusing knowledge" was expressed by the first
Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a
program that included the following statement; "It is proposed to publish a series of reports,
giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year
in all branches of knowledge." This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the
years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint,
commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the
following active series.
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
Smithsonian Contributions to Botany
Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences
Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences
Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Smithsonian Folklife Studies
Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space
Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology
In these series, the institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report
the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues
in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to
libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world.
Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian
Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the
various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review.
Press requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the inside back cover.
Lawrence M. Small
Secretary
Smithsonian Institution
S M I T H S O N I A N C O N T R I B U T I O N S TO A N T H R O P O L O G Y ? N U M B E R 4 8
The Old World Paleolithic
and the Development
of a National Collection
Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts
FOREWORD BY
Lawrence Guy Straus
ILLUSTRATIONS BY
Marcia Bakry
Smithsonian Contributions and Studies Series
AN IMPRINT OF SMITHSONIAN BOOKS
Washington, D.C.
2004
A B S T R A C T
Petraglia, Michael, and Richard Potts. The Old World Paleolithic and the Development of a
National Collection. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, number 48, 148 pages, 99
figures, 5 tables, 2004.?Beginning with the first accession of Paleolithic collections in 1869,
the Smithsonian Institution and its scientific staff have shown great interest in pursuing
research, education, and exhibition of early human lifeways. During the more than 130-year
history of acquiring objects from the Old World, a total of 22,000 objects has been amassed
from some 332 Lower to Upper Paleolithic localities. Certain objects are rare pieces from clas?
sic Paleolithic localities, although many others were obtained as representative pieces for com?
parative purposes and exhibition. Documents and letters of correspondence between Old and
New World investigators provide the historical context of collection acquisition and the moti?
vations of those involved in the international transfer and exchange of artifacts. Synthesis of
the documentation shows variability in the tempo of collection acquisition and biases in geo?
graphic interests that are tied to patterns of scientific inquiry, world wars, and later, adherence
to antiquity laws and reorientation of modern paleoanthropological methods and approaches.
Because we refer extensively to archived letters and memoranda in the text, Appendix 1 pro?
vides a chronological list of these materials and the specific Smithsonian Institution archive
where they are located.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is
recorded in the Institution's annual report, Annals of the Smithsonian Institution. SERIES COVER
DESIGN:
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data
Petraglia, M.D. (Michael D.)
The Old World Paleolithic and the development of a national collection / Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts ;
with a foreword by Lawrence Guy Straus ; and illustrations by Marcia Bakry.
p. cm. ? (Smithsonian contributions to anthropology ; no. 48)
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Paleolithic period-Collectors and collecting. 2. Tools, Prehistoric-Collectors and collecting. 3. Museums-
Acquisitions-Washington (D.C.) 4. Museums-Collection management-Washington (D.C.) 5. Smithsonian
Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. 6. Museum of Natural History (U.S.) Dept. of Anthropology. 1.
Potts, Richard, 1953- II. Title. III. Series.
? The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48?1984.
Contents
Page
Foreword: The Paleolithic in America, A Preamble to the "Excavation" of a Great
Museum, by Lawrence Guy Straus ix
Introduction 1
The Paleolithic Collections and the Smithsonian Institution 5
Background 5
Archival Documentation 6
Computer Database 6
Accession Tabulations 6
Motivations for the Acquisition of the Collections 8
Involvement of the Secretaries and the Administration 11
Involvement of Anthropologists 15
Thomas Wilson, Curator of Prehistoric Anthropology 15
Career and Appointment 15
Intellectual Outlook 16
Museum Arrangement 18
The North American Paleolithic Debate 21
Collection Controversy: Deposit or Smithsonian Property? 21
Ales Hrdlicka and the American School of Prehistoric Research 23
Career and Intellectual Outlook 23
Importance of Travels 25
Involvement with the American School of Prehistoric Research 25
James Townsend Russell, Jr 35
Career and the Old World Archaeology Fund 35
Excavations in France 36
An Abrupt End to a Promising Career 37
The Modern Era of Paleoanthropology 37
T. Dale Stewart and the Post-World War II Period 37
The Human Origins Program 39
Overview 41
The Paleolithic Accessions, 1869-1990 45
Lartet (ace. 1529, 3546) 45
Blackmore (ace. 1846, 2371) 64
Wyman (ace. 2587) 67
Garrow (ace. 4044) 68
Feuardent (ace. 7825) 68
Dawkins (ace. 10115) 68
Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique (ace. 10470) 69
Museum of Le Havre (ace. 10666) 69
Pengelly (ace. 13075) 69
White (ace. 26918) 70
Wilson (ace. 42207) 70
Musee des Antiquit.es Nationales, St. Germain-en-Laye (ace. 18891) 78
Rau(acc. 19931) 78
Lovett(acc. 20116, 20225,23040, 23170, 25615, 27077) 78
Ransom (ace. 20668) 81
American Museum of Natural History (ace. 21293) 81
Reynolds (ace. 21386) 81
iv SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
Cresson (ace. 23766) 81
Balfour (ace. 24708) 82
Museo Zoologico dei Vertebrati, Florence (ace. 24918, 25949) 82
Powell (ace. 27665) 8 3
Camp (ace. 28914) 8 4
Quick (ace. 29853) 8 4
Harrison (ace. 30109) 8 4
Hough (ace. 31440) 8 5
Seton-Karr (ace. 32485, 40597, 47957) 85
Miguel (ace. 36097, 43727, 44831, 46030) 8 8
McGuire (ace. 37330) 8 8
Steierli (ace. 38268) 8 8
Else (ace. 38778) 8 9
Albany Museum (ace. 43544) 89
Nightingale (ace. 46550, 49416) 90
Martin (ace. 47416, 55671, 71635) 90
Stonestreet (ace. 49689) 91
Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Elbeuf (ace. 49696, 50268) 91
Clark (ace. 50010, 57311) 92
Gorjanovic-Kramberger (ace. 54826) 92
Talken (ace. 54988) 93
Rehlen (ace. 55321) 93
Stadtisches Museum (ace. 55436) 94
Rutot (ace. 55867, 56614, 58532) 94
Marett (ace. 56924) 96
Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm (ace. 57262) 96
Buckingham (ace. 59162) 96
The Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology (ace. 62402) 96
Marriott (ace. 63670) 97
American Presbyterian Congo Mission (ace. 70046) 97
Moir (ace. 71310) 98
Hrdlicka (ace. 71514, 89903) 98
Archaeological Society of Washington and American School of Prehistoric
Research (ace. 84988, 90005, 98484, 95150, 95604, 103151, 107359,
112197, 115831, 121286, 126298, 132332, 133080) 98
Williams College (ace. 85687) 106
Reygasse (ace. 88916) 106
Government Museum, Madras (ace. 88426) 108
Jones(ace. 89904) 109
Bodding (ace. 90169) 109
MacCurdy (ace. 92141, 99368, 108178) 109
Bushnell (ace. 93521) 109
Indian Museum, Calcutta (ace. 88427) 110
South African Museum (ace. 101485) 110
Provincial Museum, Czechoslovakia (ace. 107637) 110
Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund (ace. 112339, 116916, 117631,
117750, 118935, 121411, 124072) I l l
Serrano y Sanz (ace. 114125) 113
Begouen(acc. 117494) 114
Abbott (ace. 124660, 128495, 134685, 140811, 150229) 114
Leach (ace. 134860, 134861) 115
McGregor Museum (ace. 141245) 116
Swan (ace. 150659) 116
Franssen (ace. 159728) 116
NUMBER 48
Reeves (ace. 170049) 117
Bruce Hughes Fund (ace. 177782) 117
Wymer (ace. 197463) 117
Vass (ace. 197993) 117
Bordes (ace. 213032) 117
Paige (ace. 214613) 118
Solecki (ace. 217009) 119
Iraq Museum (ace. 220078) 119
Government Museum, Madras (ace. 202973) 123
Jones (ace. 249458) 123
Uganda Museum (ace. 259009) 123
Hole (ace. 265162) 124
Citron (ace. 268093) 124
Shiner (ace. 278180) 124
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (ace. 295641) 125
Gibson (ace. 307731) 125
Barbour (ace. 305126) 125
Lightner (ace. 316299) 126
Klima (ace. 322222) 126
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (ace. 323176) . . . 126
Sims (ace. 351570) 127
Eichenberger (ace. 358176) 127
Old (ace. 387104) 129
Human Origins Program 129
Kenya Collections 129
Zaire Collections 130
Botswana Collections 130
Ethiopia Collections 131
India Collections 131
China Collections 131
Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects 131
Appendix 1: Location of Correspondence 135
Literature Cited 143
FIGURES
Figure 1.?Example of an incoming letter of correspondence, from George Grant
MacCurdy to Ales Hrdlicka, 23 September 1932 2
Figure 2.?Typical accession documentation for a collection 3
Figure 3.?Typical accession cards 7
Figure 4.?Map of the Old World, showing the number of Paleolithic localities
represented in the NMNH collections 8
Figure 5.?Countries with the greatest number of Paleolithic localities represented
in the NMNH collections 9
Figure 6.?Countries with the greatest number of Paleolithic artifacts in the
NMNH collections 9
Figure 7.?Number of Paleolithic artifacts accessioned by decade 10
Figure 8.?Archaeological sites represented by the greatest number of artifacts in
the NMNH collections 11
Figure 9.?Photograph of exhibits in the first Smithsonian museum ("the Castle").. . . 14
Figure 10.?Photograph of Thomas Wilson 16
Figure 11.?Paleolithic "Chelleen" implements 17
Figure 12.?Representation of the Neanderthal or Canstadt Race of Men. (The
Chellean epoch of the Paleolithic Age.) 19
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
Figure 13.?Representation of the Cro-Magnon Race of Men. (Cavern period of the
Paleolithic age) 20
Figure 14.?Chipped quartzite implements of Paleolithic type, found at Mount Ver?
non, Virginia 21
Figure 15.?Shipping stamp on an incoming box 23
Figure 16.?Ales Hrdlicka seated at his desk, ca. 1930s 24
Figure 17.?Photograph of M. Lesvignes taken at La Madeleine, France 26
Figure 18.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Basse, France 26
Figure 19.?Photograph taken at Cro-Magnon, France 27
Figure 20.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Haute, France 28
Figure 21.?Photograph taken at L'Abri du Chateau Les Eyzies, France 29
Figure 22.?Photograph taken at Sergeac, France 30
Figure 23.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Haute, France 31
Figure 24.?A postcard of Castel-Merle, France, sent by MacCurdy to Hrdlicka . . . 33
Figure 25.?James Townsend Russell, Jr., pictured in the Binghamton Press, on 10
August 1932 35
Figure 26.?T. Dale Stewart examining a Shanidar Neanderthal, 1958 37
Figure 27.?Exhibit in the National Museum of Natural History, 2001 38
Figure 28.?International research team directed by Richard Potts (Human Origins
Program, Smithsonian Institution) at the Olorgesailie Prehistoric Site 39
Figure 29.?Excavation conducted by the Human Origins Program, Smithsonian In?
stitution, of an elephant (Elephas recki) butchery site in Member 1 of the
Olorgesailie Formation, southern Kenya 40
Figure 30.?Smithsonian excavation at Kanjera North on the Homa Peninsula, west?
ern Kenya, a collaborative project of the National Museums of Kenya and
the Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution 41
Figure 31.?International team excavation at Katanda 2, in Zaire (now Democratic
Republic of the Congo), directed by John Yellen (Human Origins Program,
Smithsonian Institution, and National Science Foundation) 42
Figure 32.?International team excavation at Katanda 16, in Zaire (now Democratic
Republic of the Congo), directed by Alison Brooks (Human Origins Pro?
gram, Smithsonian Institution, and George Washington University) 43
Figure 33.?Joint excavation at the Lakhmapur locality, in the Malaprabha Valley,
India, co-directed by Ravi Korisettar (Karnatak University, India) and
Michael Petraglia (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution) 43
Figure 34.?Joint excavation at the Isampur Site, Hunsgi Valley, India, co-directed
by K. Paddayya (Deccan College, India) and Michael Petraglia (Human Or?
igins Program, Smithsonian Institution) 44
Figure 35.?Excavation in the Bose Basin, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region,
People's Republic of China, co-directed by Huang Weiwen (Institute of
Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Academia Sinica, China)
and Richard Potts (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution) 44
Figure 36.?Sagaies from La Madeleine, France 60
Figure 37.?Worked and incised bones, decorated sagaies from La Madeleine,
France 61
Figure 38.?Harpoons from La Madeleine, France 62
Figure 39.?Drawing of Baton de Commandement from La Madeleine, France 62
Figure 40.?Worked antler with horse engraving from La Madeleine, France 63
Figure 41.?Burins and composite burin-scrapers from La Madeleine, France 63
Figure 42.?Antler from Cro-Magnon, France 64
Figure 43.?Drawing of worked antler from Le Moustier, France 64
Figure 44.?Worked bone from Massat, France 65
Figure 45.?Worked stag antler from Massat, Ariege, France 65
Figure 46.?"Mortar" from La Madeleine, France 65
Figure 47.?Horse skeletal elements from Solutre, France 66
NUMBER 48
vn
Figure 48.?Handaxes from Thetford, England 67
Figure 49.?Handaxes from St. Acheul, France 68
Figure 50.?Solutrean points, scrapers, and burins from Laugerie Haute, France 71
Figure 51.?Worked bone, sagaie, and harpoon from Laugerie Basse, France 72
Figure 52.?Needle fragments from Laugerie Basse, France 72
Figure 53.?End-scrapers, burinated scrapers, and gravers from Laugerie Basse,
France 73
Figure 54.?Drawings of worked bone from Rossignol, France 74
Figure 55.?Cave bear coprolites from a cave near Pisa, Italy 75
Figure 56.?Drawings of worked bone and photograph of splintered antler from
Laugerie Haute/Basse, France 78
Figure 57.?Drawings of worked bones from Solutre and La Madeleine, France 79
Figure 58.?Drawings of worked bone awls from unknown location, France 80
Figure 59.?Cave bear canines and mandible from Breonio Cave, Italy 83
Figure 60.?Handaxes from Somaliland [Somalia] 86
Figure 61.?Handaxes from Penaar River valley, India 87
Figure 62.?Hyaena mandible and gnawed bones from Kent's Cavern, England 89
Figure 63.?Handaxes from Rephaim, Palestine 92
Figure 64.?Handaxes from Windsorton, South Africa 93
Figure 65.?Handaxes from Templeux Le-Guerard, France 95
Figure 66.?Handaxes from Caraminco, Italy 96
Figure 67.?Handaxes from Maidenhead, England 97
Figure 68.?Photograph of an excavation at Foxhall pit near Ipswich, England 99
Figure 69.?Photograph of the Foxhall pit near Ipswich, England 100
Figure 70.?Cross section of Abri des Merveilles excavations 101
Figure 71.?Scrapers from Abri des Merveilles, France 102
Figure 72.?Long-bone fragments and split long-bone shaft from Abri des Mer?
veilles, France 103
Figure 73.?Cleavers and hammerstone from Abri des Merveilles, France 104
Figure 74.?Point, perforators, scrapers, and core from Kebara, Palestine 105
Figure 75.?Scrapers from Mugharet es-Skuhl, Palestine 106
Figure 76.?Photograph of the Mugharet et-Tabun excavations 107
Figure 77.?Chopper, discoid, side scraper, handaxe, points, and graver from
Mugharet et-Tabun, Palestine 108
Figure 78.?Cores, handaxe (cleaver), and handaxe from Montagu Cave, South Af?
rica 110
Figure 79.?Handaxe from Meyral, France I l l
Figure 80.?Handaxes from Chambe, France 112
Figure 81.?Drawings of two flint artifacts from Chambe, France 112
Figure 82.?Cross section of the Marsoulas excavations 113
Figure 83.?"Artist's Palette" from Tarte, France 113
Figure 84.?Handaxes from Swanscombe, England 115
Figure 85.?Handaxes and discoid from Klippies Pan, South Africa 116
Figure 86.?Worked stone from Patjitan, Java 117
Figure 87.?Photograph of Francois Bordes replicating stone-tool manufacture . . . . 118
Figure 88.?Photograph of T. Dale Stewart meeting with Dr. Naji al Asid from
Baghdad, January 1959 119
Figure 89.?Cross section of Shanidar excavations 120
Figure 90.?Photograph of Ralph Solecki and a Kurdish woman excavating skele?
ton of a child found in Mousterian deposits in Shanidar Cave, Zagros Moun?
tains, Valley of the Great Zab River, northern Iraq 121
Figure 91.?Drawing of animal bones overlying Neanderthal skeleton no. 1, and
showing areas of soil samples for botanical analysis 122
Figure 92.?Carinated burins, Baradostian burin, and cores from Shanidar Cave,
Iraq 122
viii SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
Figure 93.?Bifaces from Nsongezi, Uganda 123
Figure 94.?Points, scrapers, and side scrapers from Gar Arjeneh, Iran 125
Figure 95.?Breccia from Choukoutien, China 126
Figure 96.?Handaxes from Sebha, Libya 127
Figure 97.?Flakes from Dingcun, China 127
Figure 98.?A discoid and three handaxes from Fjaje, Jordan 128
Figure 99.?Scrapers from Qasr Kharanah, Jordan 128
Foreword
The Paleolithic in America, A Preamble to the
"Excavation" of a Great Museum
Although perhaps a platitude, it is nonetheless true to state that much of the world's pre?
historic archaeological heritage already resides in museums. Paleolithic research (viz., dig?
ging) has been going on for more than 170 years, particularly in western Europe. Whereas
artifacts and bones are not infinite resources?any more than fossil fuels or minerals?and
whereas potentially recoverable, in situ remains are strictly limited in quantity, extant mu?
seum collections must be regarded as representing a not insignificant proportion of the uni?
versal cultural patrimony of humankind's past. Although it is easy to bemoan the frequent
lack of specific provenience information, the biased collection and curation practices of the
past, and other acknowledged flaws attendant upon many museum collections, a more con?
structive approach is to devise methods for extracting information about the prehistoric
condition from these otherwise lifeless, often forgotten archaeological resources.
Before major museum holdings can be seriously studied they must be systematically or?
ganized. This immense (and generally thankless) task involves not only the formal compi?
lation of inventories, verification of proveniences, afixing of labels, and securing storage
locations, but also the gathering, sorting, preservation, and analysis of related archival
documentation (field notes, correspondence related to donations, publications, graphic and
photographic evidence, etc.). This groundwork literally enables the fullest degree of ar?
chaeological analysis of the objects themselves, by providing the essential contextual in?
formation (including not only historical background and provenience data, which are not
always self-evident, but also indications of potential collection biases). This is the differ?
ence between active and passive curation of museum holdings: scholarship versus mere
custodianship. Thus, organizing old museum collections of archaeological materials of
any substantial quantity requires a major institutional commitment and a significant, long-
term effort. Such a commitment was made by Richard Potts when he became Curator of
Hominid Evolution Research at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History (NMNH)?laudably supported by the administration of the museum. Such an ef?
fort has been made by Michael Petraglia, first as a postdoctoral fellow and later as a re?
search associate at the NMNH, ably assisted by museum research and technical staff
members. The first fruits of the "organization" or "active curation" of the NMNH pale?
olithic collections was a series of articles by Petraglia, Potts, and others on some of the
French collections. The major material result of their commitment and effort, however, is
this book, a catalog of the Old World paleolithic materials in the NMNH, which will cer?
tainly facilitate further studies and analyses of the museum's collections. Furthermore,
this study of the collections adds to our store of knowledge: portions of the collections are
reported or described for the first time, whereas other portions are redescribed after years
of silence since their initial and generally only preliminary publication. Further work is
planned by the authors and hopefully others will join in, as there is material for many
kinds of analyses.
Once the collections are organized and their significance highlighted, then it becomes
clearer how the judicious application of modern analytical methods (e.g., radiocarbon dat?
ing?especially by accelerator mass spectrometry?isotopic, trace element, pigment, and
residue analyses, paleontological identification, archaeozoological study, lithic microwear
analysis) can extract information from seemingly marginal or apparently worthless ob-
IX
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
jects. It is true, sadly, that many things (e.g., lithic debitage technological analyses, spatial
analyses, economic anatomical element analyses of animal carcasses, diachronic assem?
blage composition analyses requiring fine chronological control) cannot be done with old
museum collections, but many others can and indeed, given the shrinking archaeological
resource base in the field for especially the most ancient periods, must be done. Even if a
site represented in a museum only provides a dot on a map with which can be associated
an approximate age based on a temporally diagnostic artifact or a radiometrically dateable
bone, this can be potentially important, as the site may have been lost or destroyed since
the time of original recovery. Once properly organized, a museum's archaeological hold?
ings may not only be "mined," they can be "excavated."
Such was our experience with often-cited, but inadequately published sites in the foot?
hill region of the French central Pyrenees, represented by important collections in the
NMNH that were made through excavations in 1931 by J. Townsend Russell (an honorary
Research Collaborator of the former U.S. National Museum) and Count Henri Begouen
(Professor of Prehistory at the Universite de Toulouse). Among these collections are rare
and spectacular antler points (sagaies), modified fossil shells, and works of engraved and
pigmented antler and bone "portable art" from the rupestral art cave site of Marsoulas.
They also include breccia samples from the nearby site of Tarte (described in the excava?
tors' reports (Russell, 1932; Begouen and Russell, 1933). Surprisingly two of the breccia
samples have a radiocarbon date of 20,000 BP. The date confirms the presence of a So-
lutrean occupation at Tarte. This occupation is, in addition to the better-known Aurigna-
cian one, well represented by classic artifacts in the NMNH collection that add significant
data to the rather poor early Upper Paleolithic record from the French Pyrenean region.
Although Russell and Begouen found no Solutrean points in the remnant breccias along
the rock face at Tarte, there are old references to such discoveries at that site (see referenc?
es in Bahn (1984:222)), but none have ever been analyzed or formally published (not even
by P.E.L. Smith (1966) in his monumental study of the Solutrean in France) as they appar?
ently had been lost. Thus, the Smithsonian's radiocarbon dates for the bone, charcoal, and
artifact-containing lumps of breccia constitute the next-best-thing in terms of pinpointing
human settlement along the northern flank of the central Pyrenees during the height of the
last glacial maximum. Solutrean sites (especially ones that have been excavated using
modern methods) along the edges of the Pyrenees are very scarce and radiocarbon dates
are virtually absent, so the Smithsonian evidence is all the more valuable. They also help
to shed light on the known Solutrean occupation of the adjacent localities of Roquecour-
bere?which are represented in the NMNH holdings by materials from a quarry-workshop
site (a type of site often ignored in the classic literature). These data, combined with those
from other sketchily known find spots, indicate there was a definite "concentration" of So?
lutrean sites in the area of the Salat-Garonne confluence. This cluster matches other, rather
similarly isolated concentrations at the western and eastern ends of the Pyrenees (Straus,
1991). It could be hypothesized that these site clusters represent Solutrean band territories.
Thus, after residing for more than 70 years in a drawer in the NMNH, the lumps of Tarte
breccia have finally provided valuable information about the pleniglaical distribution of
humans in southwestern Europe?even if many details have forever been lost.
Furthermore, comparative analyses of ochre pigments in the collection from the impor?
tant archaeological site in Marsoulas (which is almost certain to include a Middle Magdale-
nian component, based on some lithic tools and antler point styles) and of ochre paintings
on the walls of the same cave could be critical to the dating of the rupestral art and to plac?
ing it in relationship to human settlement. The artists could potentially be shown to have
left behind their materials on site. This would be very much along the lines of the pigment
research that has recently managed to relate distinctive "recipes" at the nearby living and
art cave sites of La Vache and Niaux in the Ariege uplands and at the adjacent Volp Caves
of Enlene (habitation site) and Les Trois Freres (art site) in the lowlands near Marsoulas
(Clottes, 1997). Certainly the presence of an "artist's palette" at nearby Tarte (Petraglia et
al., 1992) is germane to pigment-related activities at both it and Marsoulas.
NUMBER 48 xi
Quite independent of our NMNH work, a study of French and American collections
from the Ariege sites is underway (Foucher and San Juan, 2000a, 2000b). Thus, we are
likely to soon learn even more about these often-cited but insufficiently described sites in
the vicinity of such famous neighbors as the Volp and Lespugue Caves, Mas d'Azil, Mon-
tespan, and Le Portel.
A History of Prehistory: Writ in Stone, Bone and Bundles of Letters
This book contains a microcosm of major chapters in the history of prehistoric investiga?
tions in the Old World, as reflected across the Atlantic, especially in the age of steamship
travel (one of the great international artifact collectors, Sir Henry W. Seton-Karr, went
down with the RMS Empress of Ireland, a major maritime disaster second only to the Ti?
tanic!), courtly correspondence, honorary appointments, crates of "paleoliths" and bones
(some requiring two men to lift), and artifact exchanges and purchases to "fill gaps"?
hopefully with "quality material." It is absolutely fascinating to read the correspondence
assembled by Petraglia and Potts between Smithsonian administrators and central figures
investigating paleolithic prehistory, such as Edouard Lartet, William Pengelly, Denis Pey-
rony, Henri Martin, D. Karl Gorjanovic-Kramberger, J. Reid Moir, A.L. Rutot, Karl Abso-
lon, and Jesus Carballo. The importance of the "type" concept comes to life, for example,
in many of the letters. "Typical" pieces were most sought-after, whereas duplicates were
given away as exchanges, and bone and tooth fragments and even "minimally used stone
hammers" were simply "culled" (discarded) from the collections. There also is some de?
gree of shock in reading how some great prehistorians needed to sell artifacts to make ends
meet, and antiquarians dangled the prospect of donations (which sometimes actually be?
came sales) to obtain official appointments or at least honorific titles at the Smithsonian.
The line between good prehistorians and professional looters (such as Otto Hauser) seems
to have been a fine one at times.
The use of the famous Piney Branch quarry in Washington, D.C, as a kind of mine for
items to be exchanged for real "paleoliths" is a fascinating story (Holmes, 1890, 1897). It
resembles the common European practice in the nineteenth and early twentieth century by
which prehistorians disposed of surplus or duplicate materials from the principal sites at
which they dug or collected, in order to obtain "representative" samples from other sites
being "exploited" by their confreres. For example, the collections of Guy Magnant contain
many artifacts from the sites of Le Placard and Le Petit Puymoyen in Charente at which he
personally "dug" in the early 1910s and 1920s; in addition, his collections contain single
or small numbers of "typical" artifacts from many classic sites, especially those of Peyro-
ny's "fief" around Les Eyzies, Dordogne (Straus, 1985). Thus, even as late as the 1930s
the field of archaeology had yet to adopt the concept of artifact assemblages. For that de?
velopment we owe a great debt to the late Francois Bordes and others of the post-World
War II generation of prehistorians.
In recent years, like other fields, paleoanthropology has entered a self-reflective phase,
paying serious attention to its roots and development. This is perhaps best manifested by
American publications by such authors as D. Grayson (1983, 1990), J. Sackett (1981,
1991), A.B. Van Riper (1993), M. Landau (1991), F. Spencer (1990), L. Straus (1994,
1996), and E. Trinkaus and P. Shipman (1992). The NMNH collections brought to these
shores the artifacts of many of the great epochs and events in the history of Old World (es?
pecially European and Near Eastern) prehistory: the establishment of human antiquity, the
development of competing chronological periodization schemes (G de Mortillet's type-
site, type-artifact scheme versus the paleontological fossiles directeurs schemes of E.
Lartet and E. Piette), the "eolithic" controversy, the Moulin-Quignon fraud, the debate
concerning the place of the Neanderthals in the evolutionary trajectory of humankind, the
construction of universal cultural evolutionary stages based on sweeping inter-continental
artifact comparisons, etc. Prehistoric discovery and polemic were made tangible, despite
great physical distance, by means of collections. These were being acquired by American
xii SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOG
institutions almost from the inception of such research in western Europe, especially
France.
The primacy of France in the American view of Old World paleolithic prehistory, both
in terms of acquisitions and in terms of where Americans (such as George Grant Mac?
Curdy) went to excavate, was established early and has been enduring. This Francocentric
perspective came at the expense of not only other (nonetheless archaeologically well-en?
dowed) European countries (such as Spain, whose only artifact collection in the NMNH is
a small, poorly documented group of "Precapsian" pieces from a Madrid area sandpit), but
also Africa and East Asia. The social, cultural, and economic reasons for American col?
lecting in and archaeological relations with France deserve further scholarly treatment. It
is clear, however, that as a result of this tradition, the American view of the Paleolithic
was, until recent years, conditioned by a very narrow spectrum of direct experience?es?
pecially in the Aquitaine region of "la belle France." Clearly, a major secondary collection
focus in the twentieth century had been on the Holy Land and, by extension, the Near East,
which was perceived as a critical cultural crossroads. The ability to expand the museum's
holdings in this region was facilitated by complacent colonial and early post-colonial gov?
ernments.
Through purchases, gifts, and exchanges, the Smithsonian Institution came to possess
either original artifacts ("duplicates," which were traded about like modern-day baseball
cards) or casts, which allowed it and, by extension, the United States, to share in such
seminal discoveries as Lartet's and Peyrony's in the Vezere valley, Pengelly's at Kent's
Cavern, Henri Martin's at La Quina, or Edouard Dupont's in the Meuse valley of southern
Belgium. They don't get any more classic than these!
An American Enterprise
Although on a scale far less grand than that of the British Museum (the great institution
of another country which lacked at least the great wealth of Upper Paleolithic France, but
which sought to remedy that condition by fabulous early acquisitions from "perfidious
Gallia"), the museums of the United States and Canada actively engaged in paleolithic
collection acquisition throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this
effort, the Smithsonian,s National Museum of Natural History was by no means alone; the
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the Peabody Museum of Harvard Universi?
ty, the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the Logan Museum of Beloit
College, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, among others, all acquired significant
Old World?especially French?collections. A few significant individuals (Henry Field,
Henri Ami, and even Henri Breuil) were instrumental in bringing major collections to
America in the period before national and international antiquities laws ended such mas?
sive commerce. Many American (and British and other) museums, universities, and col?
leges financially participated in this process, and 40 (!) such shared in the spoils (directly
or indirectly through re-sales or exchanges) of Dorothy Garrod's monumental excavations
in the caves of Mount Carmel (then Palestine). This arrangement (which seems strange, if
not outrageous, from today's viewpoint, as it resulted in the far-flung dispersion of the
collections, making their comprehensive restudy virtually impossible) is fully (and grate?
fully) described by Garrod in the preface to volume 1 of The Stone Age of Mount Carmel
(Garrod and Bate, 1937), the foreword of which was written by George Grant MacCurdy.
The United States, as "officially" represented by the Smithsonian Institution (through
the former U.S. National Museum), was becoming institutionally committed to paleolithic
research throughout the last third of the nineteenth and the first third of the twentieth cen?
turies. Its first agents often were members of the consular corps, as documented in this
book, not only in the curious figure of Thomas Wilson, but also many other consuls in the
years after the large Wilson donation/loan/deposit/sale. This phenomenon also followed a
time-honored European custom, namely that of consuls (mainly British and French) ac?
quiring Greek, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian antiquities for such venerable institutions
NUMBER 48
back home as the British Museum and the Louvre.
The Smithsonian?sometimes in alliance with other American institutions, such as Yale
University or the Archaeological Society of Washington, and their creations, the Ameri?
can School of Prehistoric Research or the Franco-American Union for Prehistoric Re?
search? eventually went further by actually conducting or participating in excavations,
notably through the efforts of J. Townsend Russell (see above) and Professor MacCurdy
of Yale. The latter can be considered the first American professional paleolithic archaeol?
ogist. MacCurdy's most significant material contribution to the NMNH holdings is the
substantial collections from his 1925-1930 excavations at Castel Merle, under the auspic?
es of the American School (MacCurdy, 1931).
This book also documents the diligent (often difficult) work of Ales Hrdlicka?the "Fa?
ther of American Physical Anthropology"?to keep both himself and the Smithsonian up-
to-date with developments in Old World prehistory and human paleontology. Keeping the
institution's "finger in" significant paleolithic research meant that MacCurdy and Hrdlic?
ka conspired to assure that the American School's representative in Garrod's Mount Car?
mel expedition, Berkeley Professor Theodore McCown, would have co-authorship of the
study of the hominid discoveries. (This new Smithsonian interest in Near Eastern hominid
evolution would continue in the 1950s-1970s, with T. Dale Stewart's study of the Shani?
dar Neanderthals.) By the 1930s, the United States and the Smithsonian were no longer
content to be passive observers, purchasers, and donees of materials discovered by Euro?
peans. The NMNH was a center of human evolutionary research in the United States. This
research was of course interrupted by World War II but resumed after 1945, just as the ac?
quisition of Old World paleolithic objects by U.S. institutions came to a virtual halt, as a
consequence of the end of colonialism in the Third World and the enforcement of strict
antiquities laws throughout much of the world. Significant exceptions include collections
made in Jordan by the famous Biblical archaeologist Nelson Glueck of Hebrew Union
College, and at Shanidar and Zawi Chemi Shanidar (Iraq) by Ralph Solecki of Columbia
University. In general, however, new data and ideas?not artifacts per se?would flow
back to the U.S., as American researchers took or shared the lead in prehistoric investiga?
tions throughout much of the Old World and as a major shift in human evolutionary stud?
ies toward Africa occurred (as witnessed by the NMNH focus of the Human Origins Pro?
gram under Potts).
Concluding Remarks
This book, with its dual focus on archival and artifactual materials, represents a first ma?
jor step in highlighting and, hence, making accessible the vast and important paleolithic
holdings of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. It is itself, like the
collections, a mine of information. Petraglia and Potts have done a thorough job, but it is
just the beginning. Now these once forgotten collections must be classified, studied in
context, analyzed to the hilt in light of contemporary research questions, and then pub?
lished in detail. One can hope that similar books will be forthcoming, not only from other
American museums, but also from European institutions. Such work has already begun at
the British Museum, for example, with A. Sieveking's (1987) catalog of portable art ob?
jects, J. Cook and H. Martingell's (1994) book on Stone Age artifacts from India, and Pe?
ter Mitchell's (2002) study of its Southern African holdings. Just as archaeologists world?
wide are making inventory of the (dwindling) list of surviving sites, so must we also take
stock of the prehistoric cultural resources that lie neglected in our great museums.
Lawrence Guy Straus
Department of Anthropology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
The Old World Paleolithic and
the Development of a National Collection
Michael Petraglia and Richard Potts
Introduction
During the summer of 1987, the authors began a collabora?
tive study of Paleolithic site formation as part of Petraglia's
Smithsonian postdoctoral fellowship. During our research, we
wondered whether the National Museum of Natural History's
(NMNH) collection of stone tools had any pertinent research
value for examining our topic. Because little was known about
the nature of the museum's Paleolithic collections, storage
units holding the collections were inspected during one after?
noon in 1988. To our delight, review of the storage units and
drawers indicated that sizeable Lower, Middle, and Upper Pa?
leolithic assemblages were indeed present. Further review indi?
cated that the collections were from many sites in various re?
gions of the Old World. It was quickly realized, however, that
the assemblages were biased towards objects from classic lo?
calities in western Europe, mainly France and England, and the
Mount Carmel sites in Palestine (now Israel). Many typical
items, such as chipped-stone artifacts, were abundantly repre?
sented, among them Lower Paleolithic bifaces, Middle Pale?
olithic flake tools and bifaces, and Upper Paleolithic blade
tools. More rare French Upper Paleolithic objects also were
identified, including stone mortars from the classic type site of
La Madeleine, an artist's palette from the cave of Tarte in the
Pyrenees, and a variety of worked bones from both the Perig-
ord and Ariege regions, such as needles, sagaies, and harpoons,
and a variety of faunal remains. We soon realized that some
collections were devoid of certain tool classes, and others only
contained single items from certain sites. Yet others were far
more substantial, with some storage units and drawers contain?
ing numerous objects from single sites, especially from France
Michael Petraglia, Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Stud?
ies, Downing Street, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ,
England. Richard Potts, Department of Anthropology, National Mu?
seum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
20560-0112.
and Palestine. Therefore, it was surmised that some collections
represented sufficient samples of "excavated" sites, not just
small collections or single artifacts. Although we did not in?
clude the NMNH collections in our study of site formation, we
realized that the Paleolithic assemblages were substantial and
had potential research value. We also surmised that other re?
searchers may wish to know about the NMNH collections.
Although the "rediscovery" of these collections was fortu?
nate, equally important was the related correspondence in the
Smithsonian Archives (Figure 1). These letters were a crucial
aspect of the research, as they shed light on the motivations and
methods of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century museum
professionals, Paleolithic prehistorians, and avocational work?
ers from around the world. We therefore considered this to be
an opportunity to detail the involvement of numerous persons
and institutions in the development of Old World Paleolithic
archaeology. The preservation of the artifact collections and
the related archival correspondence provided the vehicle to ex?
amine these historic developments. Moreover, the collections
provided the potential to conduct scientific re-examination, al?
though it was realized that topics would need to be specifically
tailored to the condition of the assemblage in question.
As background to our museum research, researchers have in?
creasingly recognized the need to study the history of archaeol?
ogy and paleoanthropology. Books and articles have been de?
voted to the development of archaeology as a scientific
discipline (i.e., the methods, techniques, and types of interpre?
tation) (Daniel, 1975; Willey and Sabloff, 1993) and the cul?
tural and social milieu in which the subject was born and
evolved (e.g., Trigger, 1989; Patterson, 1995). Related to our
topic, researchers have specifically examined the rise and de?
velopment of Old World archaeology and the growth of anthro?
pological museums (e.g., Sackett, 1981; Grayson, 1983; Trig?
ger, 1989). Historical accounts of Old World archaeology
clearly demonstrate that many important Paleolithic localities
were excavated by professional and avocational investigators
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOL
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH
GEORGE GRANT MACCURDY. Director
Foreign Address:
American University Union
1 Gordon Square
London, W. C. 1
Dear Dr. Hrdlicka:
Home Address:
Peabody Maaenm, Yulu Uiiiuwaity
O l d Lyme |??jqHS?en, Connecticut
U. S. A.
Sept. 23, 1932
Referring to your letter of May 12, I wrote to Miss Garrod on June 7( sending
a cppy of the letter to Etof. J.L. Myres), saying that our Trustees thought an Amer?
ican specialist should be joint*author withSir. Arthur Keith when it came to study?
ing and publishing the human skeletal remain* from the four eaves near Mt. Carmel
(these include scores of mesolithic skeletons found especially in the Cave of the Val?
ley). 1/ suggested your name/. Both Miss G. and Keith feel that so far as the nine
Neandertal skeletons are concerned, such fin arrangement would be unfair to McCown.
Keith finally told Miss G. that he wouldnnot participate in any arrangement which
does not make McCown principal author". She wrote me to this effect saying she was
in complete agreement with Keith. This is a paint we can afford to concede so far
as the nine Neandertalians are concerned.
If you hare in mind a study of only the Neandertal material the problem
would be somewhat simplified provided of course that you agree to let McCown be
nominally the principal author. Keith's contibution and yours could follow McCown*s
under the same cover, or at least be issued simultaneously.
The big and costly job now is to detach the Neandertalians from their stony
matrix. This will take many months. McCown is now teaching at Berkeley and does not
plan to join Keith in London until next May. He was here with us for a day (Aug.12).
We took him to Holyoke to see Chairman Green and tried to make it plain to him, that
yon also should have an opportunity to study the Neandertal remains and write up the
results for publication. Both Keith xut and Miss/ G. want him to have him have every
opportunity to make the most of his lucky find. So do we; but we feel that our School
should have something to say in naming the specialists, where help is needed outside
those who actually made the finds.
Donald Scott, Dir. of the Peabody Museum of Harvard(also a trustee of our
School), will be in london the 1st of Nov. He has consented to discuss this matter
with Keith and Myres(Miss G. is in Palestine until the end of Dec.). If you still
want to goto London to study the skeletons, kindly let me know so that ?*? may com?
municate your decision to Seott^*before he leaves London. We are assuming that in case
you go you would finance the trip yourself. Keith had a write-up in The Illustr.
London News of July 9, also in St^ New York Times of Sept. 18(Sunday).
Trusting that you have had a profitable season in the northland and with
best wishes from us both,
Very sincerely yours, * P sj
f-jpCfpAe*
FIGURE 1.?Example of an incoming letter of correspondence, from George Grant MacCurdy to Ales Hrdlicka
23 September 1932. [In this case, the letter is an original type-written example, whereas others often are hand?
written or a carbon-copy.]
during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Significant
artifacts often became part of private collections; others went
to museums and universities throughout North America. Given
that many important sites were excavated and assemblages
widely distributed to many institutions, there has been a need
to document the existence and location of these significant and
often extraordinary Old World collections (e.g., Bahn and
Cole, 1986; Simek, 1986; White, 1986a, 1986b, 1988; White
N U M B E R 48
ACCESSION 133080 cat. No. 374,301-317
Ef*T6*EP
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
m 3 0 IS35 UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
ACCESSION MEMORANDUM
Department tf?J^*?E?l?gIJU- Division of .^MliM^SSSb.
___Augus t__28?t /oj 5 .
Please enter a, an accession from . . . A r c h a e o l o g i c a l J o c l e t j . Of W a s h -
Ington,
(Address) Southern Building,
Waahlngtotij P . C.
the following object (collected ISA I without the aid of a Museum outfit):
Colle ct ion j)f _ Paleoli thi c artifa cts from
Mu"ghaFet"et-T"abun TCave~"6f""the OvelTJ', "near
Athlit, Palestine, obtained by the_ 1934 Joint
"~e"xi5eaTtTbn^T""the""Amel;rcan "School" 6F"PrehTs"t6r i c
Research and the British School of Archaeology
??n-pal?rst?nB".
/ 33a fo
Papers appended A l l , J 1 5 5 , 0 8 0 } ,
(The Assistant Secretary directs that AIX letters in the possession of the Curator
or his assistants, which relate to this accession, be attached to this memorandum and
forwarded with it to the Division of Correspondence.)
Gift, exchange, loan, deposit, transfer, bequest, collected for the Museum, purchase,
made in the Museum.
1 . 1 . COVCflH MEBT FIIHTINS OFFICE. ! ? ! ? I S ? 1 0 f t
FIGURE 2.?Typical accession documentation for a collection [accession 133080].
and Breitborde, 1992; Straus, 1996).
Our work represents a historical overview of the develop?
ment of the Old World Paleolithic collections curated in the
Smithsonian Institution (Table 1). In compiling this book, two
goals of the project were formulated: (1) to document the exist?
ence of the collections and to create an inventory of accessions
by provenience and artifact types; and (2) to more closely re?
late archival and accession information in order to indicate why
and how the collections were acquired. With respect to the first
aim, artifact accession counts have been organized by geo?
graphic location and site provenience (Figure 2). Thus, for the
first time, this book centrally codifies the provenience, nature,
and size of the Paleolithic collections. For the second goal, the
original collection-related correspondence and artifact invento?
ries in various Smithsonian archives were reviewed to provide
a history of the activities of institutions and persons involved in
the transactions. The archival material ranged from the first re?
corded transaction in 1869 to the most recent accession as of
1990, a period of 121 years. Because we refer extensively in
the text to archival letters and memoranda, Appendix 1 pro-
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
Year
1846
1869
1887
1896
1902
1897
1903
TABLE 1.?Important events in the development of the Old World collections at the Smithsonian Institution.
Event
Smithsonian Institution established by the United States Congress; Joseph Henry appointed first Secretary.
First Paleolithic accession, from French prehistorian Edouard Lartet.
. 8 8 3 The Department of Ethnology (led by Otis Mason) and the Department of Antiquities (led by Charles Rau) were estab?
lished.
Thomas Wilson appointed administrator and then curator of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology.
Wilson published a major work, "Prehistoric Art...," in the Annual Report, U.S. National Museum.
Wilson died, and in 1904 his collections were purchased by the Smithsonian for $2,650 [about $61,426 in 2003 dollars].
William H. Holmes appointed as head curator of the Department of Anthropology.
Holmes hired Ales Hrdlicka and the new Division of Physical Anthropology was established.
1918 Hrdlicka founded the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
1922
Hrdlicka became a member of the board of directors of the "American School in France of Prehistoric Studies" at the invi?
tation of Charles Peabody and George Grant MacCurdy of Yale University.
1923 Hrdlicka became Director of the American School for the 1923 season; traveled extensively with students in Europe.
Hrdlicka received permission from Denis Peyrony to conduct excavations at Sergeac, France, and secured funding from a
1924 trustee of the Archaeological Society of Washington to conduct excavations at Abri des Merveilles, France.
T. Dale Stewart hired as temporary aide to Hrdlicka.
Substantial collections from Abri des Merveilles, France, were first accessioned and deposited by the Archaeological So-
1925 ciety of Washington and the American School.
J. Townsend Russell enrolled as a student of the American School, became a trustee of the school in 1926.
1926 "American School of Prehistoric Research" was incorporated in Washington, D.C; Hrdlicka named as a trustee.
1927 Hrdlicka published the influential article, "The Neanderthal Phase of Man."
1928 Joint excavations conducted in Iraq with the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Russell named temporary assistant in archaeology at the Smithsonian.
1928 Hrdlicka won approval for formation of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
1929 Joint excavations began at Mount Carmel, Palestine, by the American and British Schools. Russell became a collaborator in Old World Archaeology and establishes the Old World Archaeology Fund.
1930 The first collections from the Middle East obtained by the American and British Schools.
1931
First human fossils discovered at Mugharet es-Skuhl, Palestine, by Theodore McCown (representative of the American
School). Mount Carmel assemblages were accessioned at the Smithsonian.
Russell conducted joint excavations with Count Henri Begouen in France, and published his article, "Report on Archaeo?
logical Research in the Foothills of the Pyrenees" (1932).
1934 Final season of joint American-British excavations at Mount Carmel, Palestine.
1937 Volume 1 of The Stone Age of Mount Carmel published (Garrod and Bate).
1939 Volume 2 of The Stone Age of Mount Carmel published (McCown and Keith).
1943 Hrdlicka died.
1957 Stewart began analysis of Shanidar Neanderthals.
1977 Stewart published his major and final work on the Shanidar Neanderthals.
1985 Potts hired as assistant curator in Physical Anthropology.
1990 Human Origins Program established.
1997 Stewart died.
NUMBER 48
vides a chronological list of these materials and the specific
Smithsonian archive where they are located. This project chal?
lenged us to examine our own modern research programs in
light of past work. The current Human Origins Program (1990
to the present) is presented in the context of this historic frame?
work. In sum, this book documents nineteenth and twentieth
century Paleolithic research and collection activities at the
Smithsonian, complementing other works devoted to the estab?
lishment of the former United States National Museum (which
became the National Museum of Natural History) and the de?
velopment of anthropology research in the institution (e.g.,
Riedman, 1961; Hinsley, 1981; Kohlstedt, 1991; Rivinus and
Youssef, 1992).
It is hoped that this project will encourage the historic and
scientific study of the collections. The accessions and related
correspondence offer much information about the development
of paleoanthropology in particular countries and regions. We
find that there is value in examining artifacts from particular
countries and site materials and placing them in a historic con?
text. For example, we have already examined how La
Madeleine "mortars" from Lartet and Christy's excavations
came to the Smithsonian in 1869 (Petraglia and Potts, 1992);
how the Ariege cave and rockshelter material came to the Na?
tional Museum in the 1930s (Petraglia et al., 1992; Petraglia et
al., 2002); and how the Lower Paleolithic stone tool collections
from India were acquired (Petraglia and Noll, 2001). Although
most of the collections are clearly old and often partial in com?
position, thereby limiting scientific research possibilities, it
also may be reasoned that certain goals can be achieved if there
is a careful match between particular questions and specific as?
semblages. In fact, we have been engaged in such research, at?
tempting to examine Upper Paleolithic pigment processing
techniques by conducting technical analyses on specific objects
collected in 1869 and 1931 (Petraglia et al., 1992; Vandiver et
al., 1994), and conducting stone tool attribute analysis as part
of larger analytical studies (Petraglia and Noll, 2001). As part
of this re-evaluation, we also have radiocarbon dated breccia
from one cave in southern France, placing assemblages in ab?
solute temporal context, thus filling a gap in our knowledge of
human settlement along the northern flank of the Pyrenees dur?
ing the last glacial maximum (Petraglia et al., 2002). Thus, the
application of modern technical analyses to old collections may
prove fruitful, allowing for comparison with other modern
studies. Our main hope is that this book will further stimulate
others to engage in similar research projects.
The Paleolithic collections project began in 1988 and contin?
ued on a part-time basis for 13 years. This project would not
have been concluded successfully without institutional support
and the encouragement of numerous individuals during this pe?
riod. Funding for this work was obtained from several Collec?
tions Improvement Grants and an Exhibits Grant from the Na?
tional Museum of Natural History. Previous chairpersons of the
Department of Anthropology, Donald Ortner, Dennis Stanford,
and Carolyn Rose, endorsed the implementation of this project
from its inception; and current chairperson Dan Rogers has
helped guide the manuscript to publication. Many colleagues
from the Smithsonian Institution Archives, the NMNH Office
of the Registrar, the Department of Anthropology, the National
Anthropological Archives, the Anthropology Library, the Pro?
cessing Laboratory, and Collections Management were of great
assistance during the course of this project. We wish to espe?
cially acknowledge the assistance of Jennifer Clark, Norma
Kellogg Crumbley, Maggie Dittemore, Catherine Creek, Can?
dace Greene, Greta Hansen, Deborah Hull-Walski, Johanna
Humphrey, Andy Klafter, James Krakker, Mayda Riopedre,
and Virtues Thomas. Mindy Zeder is thanked for providing her
preliminary faunal inventory. Marcia Bakry enhanced the use?
fulness and quality of this book tremendously, providing all
line-art, photographs, and digital images. We also appreciate
the assistance of interns Cindy Cordero and Steve Walker, who
helped to update the artifact counts. Alison Brooks kindly pro?
vided information on her research in Africa and China. Many
of our colleagues have helped us to improve this volume by
providing background information and comments, including
Paul Bahn, Jean Clottes, Naama Goren-Inbar, Donald Grayson,
David Meltzer, Dennis Stanford, Lawrence Straus, and Randall
White.
The Paleolithic Collections and the Smithsonian Institution
Background
The year 1869 marked the first accession of Old World Pale?
olithic material at the Smithsonian Institution. For many de?
cades afterwards, there was a sustained effort to obtain objects
for exhibits concerning human inventions and lifeways and for
cross-continental comparisons of material culture. From the
outset, the secretaries and other top administrators of the insti?
tution were involved in these international exchanges. As the
Smithsonian grew in size and scope, curators and departmental
staff became more centrally involved in collection acquisition
and organization. Although Paleolithic collections were contin?
uously sought, first by Secretaries Henry and Baird, and then
by curators, such as Thomas Wilson and Ales Hrdlicka, their
central administrative and research commitments were else?
where. The result of their efforts to obtain Old World material
for exhibit and comparative purposes is the vast, essentially un?
published, Paleolithic collection.
Prior to describing the history of collection acquisition and
the involvement of museum professionals in its compilation, the
methods and results of our research are briefly described. As in?
dicated below, correspondence and documentation material
were gathered at several Smithsonian archives, whereas initial
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
artifact provenience information was obtained from the Smith?
sonian's central computer database. The positive and negative
aspects behind these information sources are briefly described.
Based upon this information, the nature of the Paleolithic hold?
ings and an overview of collections development is provided.
Archival Documentation
One of the first tasks in compiling this study was to place the
Paleolithic collections in their appropriate historical and chro?
nological frameworks. This was possible because of the preser?
vation of primary documents in three main Smithsonian ar?
chives: the Smithsonian Institution Archives; the Office of the
Registrar, National Museum of Natural History; and the Na?
tional Anthropological Archives. The Smithsonian Institution
Archives retained the records and correspondence of Smithso?
nian secretaries and other administrators; the National Museum
of Natural History Office of the Registrar contained artifact in?
ventories and related transportation records; and the National
Anthropological Archives preserved correspondence of various
anthropologists. Fortunately, the Smithsonian Institution has
preserved written records, thereby providing information about
the motivations of scholars and about the collections. No single
archival source was comprehensive, however, and in order to
conduct historical research and compile information on con?
text, the separate archives needed to be cross-checked. In some
cases, the collections were accompanied by artifact inventories
with good provenience information; in other cases, the archival
documents had little information about the Paleolithic assem?
blages other than simply noting country, region, or site desig?
nations. Sometimes original correspondence written in foreign
languages were translated by Smithsonian staff, and the origi?
nal letters were not retained in the archival material. This
sometimes resulted in imprecise English translations that have
been reproduced here. Some of the correspondence that we
quote had minor spelling mistakes and missing symbols. These
minor errors have been corrected. Unfortunately, missing en?
tirely from the Smithsonian archives are any field notes or pri?
mary field records (if they ever existed), despite the fact that
some of the excavations and material gathering were conducted
by Smithsonian researchers.
Computer Database
Aiding in the compilation of the Paleolithic assemblages was
the fact that all anthropology objects in the NMNH were en?
tered into an IBM mainframe computer database in the 1970s.
Each object in the database had a field for museum storage lo?
cation and catalog information. The catalog information was
complied from hand-written and typed catalog cards and acces?
sion inventories, the earlier method by which controls and or?
ganization were established (Figure 3). The computer inven?
tory is continually updated with new information as collections
are acquired or provenience information is improved. Storage
and catalog information is accessed using a database manage?
ment program called INQUIRE. In 2002, the computer inven?
tory was changed to a new software, Electronic Museum
(Emu), as part of a multimedia catalog system.
Although computer codification is of great utility for the
management of, and search for, specific objects, the database's
field for cultural affiliation had not been completely coded at
the inception of this project. Therefore, the first step was to
find Paleolithic artifacts among the world-wide anthropologi?
cal collections. This was achieved by searching the database,
using variables such as site provenience and object name, and
locating key words that would potentially denote age affilia?
tion. From the resulting computer list, objects were then exam?
ined to see if they were Paleolithic. The end result of this rou?
tine was the coding of the variable "Paleolithic" into the
database in order to obtain a comprehensive listing apart from
other museum holdings. Although this effort was successful, it
should be noted that an even more systematic review of the col?
lections may yield additional items for placement on the Pale?
olithic inventory. Problems persist in the database because the
inventory was derived from old and sometimes incomplete cat?
alog records and, additionally, artifact types were sometimes
recorded by non-specialists. Exacerbating problems, quantities
above a count of five were coded as ranges. In particular,
counts of more than 20 artifacts were listed only as greater than
20. Numerous items from certain proveniences were assigned a
single catalog number, and in the computer inventory they
were counted as "1 lot." The problem was that a catalog record
listed as greater than 20 or as one lot could consist of several
hundred items. To help rectify this, initial hand counts were
conducted for artifacts numbering more than 20, thereby result?
ing in more accurate estimates. It also should be noted that the
classifications as noted in the assemblage figures of this book
are not based upon detailed study. Detailed examination of the
collections by future researchers will certainly lead to revised
counts and functional types.
Accession Tabulations
The Old World Paleolithic collection represents 332 loca?
tions in 30 countries, ranging through Africa, Europe, and Asia
(Figure 4). There are approximately 22,000 objects in the col?
lection, indicating that most assemblages are, on average, small
samples of localities. The assemblages consist of the entire se?
quence of the Paleolithic, abundantly represented by Lower Pa?
leolithic handaxe industries, Middle Paleolithic cores and
flakes, and Upper Paleolithic blade and bone technologies. The
collections were acquired between 1869 and 1990, mainly
through donations and exchanges, in addition to some pur?
chases, deposits, and loans. A total of 138 accessions accumu?
lated, represented by 91 individuals and institutions.
Reflecting a bias in collection, the majority of the materials
were obtained from western Europe, particularly France and
England (Figure 5). Of the 332 locations represented in the col?
lections, 162 (49%) are in France and 49 (15%) are in England,
together accounting for 64% of all the locations. The total
NUMBER 48
P!.YJ?!?5 of Archeology.
A?. 117760
Acquired Gift - Jan. 27, 1932.
Collector Old Tlforld Aroheology Fund.
Address Smithsonian Ins t i tu t ion .
HISTORY OF COLLECTION.
Collection of Upper Paleolithic objects excavated under
the direction of J. Townsend Russell in the south of France by "The
Franco-American Union for Prehistoric Research in France by the Uni?
versity of Toulouse and the Smithsonian Institution" during the
season of 1931 on funds coming from the Old World Archeology Fund
and received by the Division of Archeology as a gift from the Fund.
No. Cards 58 ia_l?n No. Specimens 45Q
Cat. No.
363247
Ace. No.
117750
Orig. No.
Marks
Name A r t i s t p a l e t t e .
People Aurignacian
F rance .
Locality Cave of T a r t e , Commune of Casagne, Haute Garonne,
Old World Archeo logy ffcnd s b t ^ r, , - ? Collector Franco AmerrTJnion for'TPreh. Research i n F rance .
Acquired G i f t Date. J a n . 2 7 , 1 9 3 2 .
P l a c e d
. : . .^_ ,SX? * / / -,'o.i S i le 9 X 7 "
Remarks Surface .
U. 8. NATIONAL MUSEUM OLD WORLD ARCHEOLOGY
FIGURE 3.?Typical accession cards, [(a) History of collection card; and (b) artifact catalog card. Current com?
puter database was constructed from this information.]
number of objects in the collections by country or geographic
area again shows the preponderance of the assemblages from
France and England, accounting for 12,020 artifacts, or 54.6%
of the total (Figure 6). Artifacts from Palestine (now Israel) are
abundant, totaling 4033 objects. The high artifact counts and
the small number of locations from Palestine are the result of
intensive excavations by the American School of Prehistoric
Research. The large number of artifacts from Uganda (n=1948)
and Iraq (n=1462) are primarily the result of targeted excava?
tions of particular areas.
Tabulation of artifact totals by decade indicates variation in
the pace of collections acquisition (Figure 7). The greatest
numbers of artifacts were obtained in the periods 1929-1938
(n=6125) and 1919-1928 (n=4084). The large collections cor?
respond with large deposits of excavated material by the Amer?
ican School for Prehistoric Research through curator Ales
Hrdlicka and the donations of research collaborator James T.
Russell and his Old World Archaeology Fund. The surge in the
period 1899 to 1908 is mainly the result of the purchase of the
estate collections of curator Thomas Wilson in 1904. The small
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
FIGURE 4.
lections.
-Map of the Old World, showing the number of Paleolithic localities represented in the NMNH col-
number of artifacts from 1909 to 1918 (n=765) and the acces?
sion of 16 artifacts from 1939 to 1948 reflect disruptions
caused by World War I and World War II, respectively. The
deposit of the Shanidar Cave material in 1958 resulted in
higher artifact counts from 1949 to 1958, and the deposit of
material from Magosi and Nsongezi in 1965 resulted in the
higher totals from 1959 to 1968. Of note is that few artifacts
have been accessioned during the last three decades, even at the
height of systematic field investigations by members of the Hu?
man Origins Program. The lack of accessions after 1969 is the
result of legal controls of home-country artifacts established by
antiquities legislation.
Certain archaeological locations are numerically well repre?
sented as the result of excavations or repeated collections from
certain areas (Figure 8). The largest collections are from Abri
des Merveilles, France (n=4357), and Mugharet et-Tabun, Pal?
estine (n=2793), from excavations by the American School for
Prehistoric Research. The Magosi assemblages were obtained
by the Uganda Museum and the excavator Glen Cole. The
Shanidar material was provided by the excavations of Ralph
Solecki and Curator T.D. Stewart. The Kent's Cavern material
resulted from acquisition of the excavated material obtained by
William Pengelly.
Motivations for the Acquisition of the Collections
A review of official records and letters of correspondence
shows that the Smithsonian's Old World Paleolithic collections
(together with many other collections of different periods and
geographic regions) were obtained to acquire representative
material for comparative research and for exhibit. By 1860, the
consensus in western Europe was that ancient humans co-ex?
isted with extinct animals and that they had been on earth prior
to its present form (Grayson, 1983). The desire to gather Old
World Paleolithic collections began in the early years of the
Smithsonian, and geologists and archaeologists presumed that
human antiquity of Europe and North America would be simi?
lar (Meltzer, 1983). Secretary Henry was an ardent supporter of
NUMBER 48
180
160-
140
V)
W 120
<
U
o
tin
O
oi
w
PQ
D
Z
100-
80
60
4 0 -
2 0 -
FlGURE 5.?Countries with the greatest number of Paleolithic localities repre?
sented in the NMNH collections.
? E ^ ??^ d k i d b i P^ ZT*
1? *& of < / <* y
COUNTRY
^
'x .'''i>i'. F R A G I L E ? K E E P D R Y . v \.\-A- Envoi de Thomas WILSON, U. S. Consul k Nice. & ? SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. Washington. D. C. LES ETATS-UNIS D'AMIERIQUE. V i a M a r s e i l l e e t ITe'xXr-'X'orlE.. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SPECIMENS FOB THE MUSEUM. Not to be opened without orders from Professor Baird. O p e n only- f r o m t h i s s i d e FIGURE 15.?Shipping stamp on an incoming box, Wilson accession. [Figure 15]. While there would thus appear to be abundant evidence that for many years these collections were regarded as given to the Government, there cannot be now be produced, so far as I can learn, any positive documentary proof to substantiate such a claim. Rathbun outlined the situation to Secretary Langley in a memorandum dated 7 December 1903, discussing the impor? tance of the collection and the potential price: I have already acquainted you with the fact that in his will the late Doctor Tho? mas Wilson bequethed his entire collection in prehistoric archeology to his son, James Franklin Wilson, and that the said collection is now offered for sale to the National Museum. It has been understood that Doctor Wilson valued the collection at $5,000 [about $128,769 in 2003 dollars], but the Museum has been requested to state the figure which it is willing to pay for it. Mr. James Wilson is not directly known in the transaction, all the correspondence so far having been between his legal adviser, Mr. Arthur Peter, and the Museum, be? ginning as long ago as January 26, 1903. It seems quite unnecessary for me to enter into the history of the Thomas Wilson Collection, which contains mate? rial from Europe, Egypt and America, the really valuable parts being practi? cally all European. The first and main part of the collection was received here from Europe in 1886 and, as it was then understood that the collection was to be a gift, the Museum paid all charges connected with its transportation. The question of ownership of this part of the collection, as of all others which had been in doubt, was, however, finally settled in January, 1895, as vested in Doc? tor Wilson, as will be seen from the following copies of letters. Rathbun also provided Secretary Langley with excerpts of letters from Wilson to Goode (18 January 1895), and from Goode to Wilson (19 January 1895). Rathburn then instructed William Henry Holmes, Chief of the Bureau of American Eth? nology, to prepare an invoice and valuation of the collection. In reference to Holmes' valuation, Rathbun stated to Langley, on 5 December 1903: Mr. Holmes, who has examined this collection with a view to deciding upon its value to the Museum, reports that for the European specimens he would name $2500 [about $57,949 in 2003 dollars] as a maximum valuation and for the American specimens $150 [about $3,476]. To lose the European material however, would make a large gap in our archeo? logical series, though with time and the expenditure of no greater sum than $2,500 it might be possible to obtain as full a set of this class of objects from Europe as the National Museum would need to possess. The figures named by Mr. Holmes are based on the needs of the National Museum rather than on cur? rent prices for such material and, unless we can offer more than $2,500, it seems reasonably certain that we shall lose the collection. I am constrained, however, to stand by Mr. Holmes' valuation, and so recommend that this sum be offered. In the final correspondence on this ownership dispute, dated 16 January 1904, the attorney for Hemphill & Peter replied to Secretary Langley that "On behalf of Mr. James F. Wilson, we do hereby accept the offer of the National Museum, therein contained, for the Archaeological collection now belonging to Mr. James F. Wilson and on exhibit at your Museum." In 1904, the museum collection was purchased for the extraordinary price of $2,650.00 [about $61,426 in 2003 dollars] from the Wilson estate. This transaction represented the largest single purchase of Paleolithic material in the Smithsonian's history. ALES HRDLICKA AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH Career and Intellectual Outlook Ales Hrdlicka had a long and illustrious career in anthropol? ogy, achieving fame for his research in physical anthropology (Stewart, 1940, 1981; Montagu, 1944; Schultz, 1945; Spencer, 1979; Loring and Prokopec, 1994) (Figure 16). Although the focus of Hrdlicka's career was physical anthropology, he also made significant contributions to American archaeology, espe? cially as it pertained to the peopling of North America (Spencer and Smith, 1981; Harper and Laughlin, 1982; Willey and Sa- bloff, 1993). Hrdlicka strongly argued for a late age of human occupation of North America and the Old World, both of which eventually were proven wrong. Although shown to be incor? rect, Hrdlicka's stubborn belief in a late peopling of America forced other investigators to validate their chronological claims. Hrdlicka's career at the museum began on 1 May 1903, when he became an assistant curator in charge of the new Divi? sion of Physical Anthropology. He served as full curator from 1910 until his retirement in 1941. During his many decades at the National Museum, Hrdlicka trained a large number of re? searchers in anthropology and anthropometric techniques (Spencer, 1982), thereby directly contributing to increasing the ranks of physical anthropologists. From the beginning of his career, he modeled physical anthropology after the biomedical sciences, and his institution plans closely followed M. Paul Broca's famous anthropological organizations in France (Spen? cer, 1981), with an ultimate desire to form an "institute" in Washington, D.C. (Stewart and Spencer, 1978). Hrdlicka founded the American Journal of Physical Anthro? pology in 1918. The founding of the journal was a landmark in the development of the field, as it established the discipline's identity, codified standards for the discipline, and provided an outlet to support the growth of physical anthropology (Spencer, 24 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 16.?Portrait of Ales Hrdlicka seated at his desk, ca. 1930s. [National Anthropological Archives, NMNH.] 1981). Hrdlicka proposed the formation of American Associa? tion of Physical Anthropologists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings in 1928. The pro? posal won approval at that meeting, after previous attempts during the 1920s failed. The inaugural meeting of the organiza? tion was held in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1930. Hrdlicka also was involved in the establishment and growth of the American School of Prehistoric Research in the 1920s and 1930s (detailed below). During his career, Hrdlicka published extensively on many subjects in physical anthropology, but during the 1930s he concentrated on his Arctic expeditions and on documenting morphological variation in Homo sapiens (e.g., Hrdlicka, 1930b, 1944, 1945). Concerning evolutionary skeletal studies in particular, Hrdlicka published important technical works, including The Most Ancient Skeletal Remains of Man (1913) and the more ex? tensive compendium, The Skeletal Remains of Early Man (1930a). Hrdlicka also was engaged in popular writing on evo? lution, co-authoring the work Man from the Farthest Past (1930) with Associate Curator Carl Whiting Bishop (Freer Gal? lery of Art) and Secretary Charles G. Abbott. With respect to early man of the Old World, Hrdlicka con? tended that modern Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthal populations (Spencer, 1997). In this model, he reasoned that hominids had slowly spread eastward into Asia and ultimately into the New World at the end of the Pleistocene (Hrdlicka, 1921). Hrdlicka's 1927 publication, based upon his Huxley Me? morial Lecture to the Royal Anthropological Institute, The Ne? anderthal Phase of Man, was a very influential work in anthro? pology (Spencer and Smith, 1981). On the basis of anatomical observations, such as the shovel-shaped incisor trait, Hrdlicka argued that Neanderthals were the direct ancestors of modern humans (Hrdlicka, 1920, 1927; see also Spencer, 1979; Trinkaus, 1982). In the Huxley lecture, Hrdlicka also marshaled archaeological data, seeing a cultural continuity from the Mous- terian to the Aurignacian. As an argument against abrupt change, Hrdlicka observed that many European Aurignacian oc? cupations were located in the same places as Mousterian sites. Moreover, Aurignacian artifact assemblages resembled those of the preceding period, suggesting some degree of continuity. Al? though few scientists at the time supported Hrdlicka's thesis that Neanderthals were direct ancestors, he made significant NUMBER 48 25 points about archaeological sites and hominid anatomical fea? tures that could represent adaptations to cold climatic conditions and variations among fossil populations (Trinkaus and Ship- man, 1992). Although Hrdlicka was concerned with evolution? ary issues, he never concentrated his research on the material culture of the Old World, except for traveling extensively and leading the American School for Prehistoric Research, first as a direct participant and later as a facilitator. Hrdlicka did, how? ever, amass a large Paleolithic archaeological collection at the National Museum as a result of his extensive physical anthropo? logical and evolutionary studies. Importance of Travels As a curator in the Department of Anthropology, Hrdlicka traveled extensively to foreign countries to establish contacts with colleagues and to acquire collections. In 1908, he made his first request for permission to travel abroad. In a letter to the head curator of the department, O.T. Mason, on 1 May 1908, Hrdlicka described why he considered such a trip important: I know well that you share with me the desire to see the Division which I am in charge of abreast of the times. It is already well ahead of anything this Country [sic] in the quantity, character, and availability of its collections, and I should like to make it representative in every particular. With this object in view, it would be of great service if I were enabled to become acquainted, through per? sonal examination, with the advancement in physical anthropology and allied branches much has been realized within the last 12 years, or since my last visit, in various European Institutions. I know through scientific writings as well as from private information that the advance has been substantial, while new col? lections and laboratories have been established, and there is no other satisfac? tory means than a personal visit through which most of the valuable details concerning new material, methods, etc., can be learned. I shall state in brief what such journey might safely be expected to result, all of which would be a more or less direct asset to the Museum: 1. Visit the principal European labora? tories and collections in physical anthropology would furnish the knowledge of everything contemporaneous in the lines of existence, preparation, conserva? tion and exhibition of material. 2. It would result in the establishment or re? newal of personal contact with men in the same field of research, which is a factor of great advantage in many particulars. 3. It would in all probability lay foundations, or lead directly, to desirable exchanges of material. Mason agreed with Hrdlicka on the importance of foreign travel to obtain collections and wrote to Assistant Secretary Rathbun on 4 May 1908, requesting permission for such a trip: In begging you to grant Doctor Hrdlicka's [sic] request, 1 recall the great boon that fell on me in 1889, when Professor Langley sent me to the Paris Exposi? tion and on the inspection tour of museums. Doctor Hrdlicka, familiar with German, educated at the Ecole d'Anthropologie, at Paris, personally ac? quainted with the men and the situation, would make his visit most helpful to the future development of the Division. He could learn the best of the best methods, see the various ways of managing study series and exhibits, and ac? quaint himself with the sources of materials which might be obtained through exchange. I know that it will be with the sacrifice of personal comfort for him to make the journey and I think that the mission would in every way rebound to the upbuilding of the National Museum. Hrdlicka was granted his travel request, visiting Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Hungary, and Bohemia, among others. Hrdlicka's desire to travel, to build rapport with foreign scien? tists, and to amass collections in anatomy and archaeology con? tinued after his first extensive trip. In 1920, he traveled to China, Japan, Korea, Manchuria, and Mongolia, and in 1922, he visited Spain, France, Germany, Moravia, and England. In 1923, as Di? rector of the American School for Prehistoric Studies in Europe, he visited England, France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Bohe? mia, Austria, Croatia, and Italy, and in 1925, he traveled to Aus? tralia, India, Java, South Africa, and Europe. Hrdlicka's motiva? tions for such wide-ranging trips were described in his letter to Hough on 24 January 1908, prior to his Asia trip: To visit India [and] all the Institutions that possess anthropological, archaeo? logical and paleontological collections for the purpose of becoming acquainted with just what there is in these lines in that country in relation to the fossil apes and early man. From India I shall proceed to Java, stopping if possible at the Straits settlements to see the local workers and collections. In Java I shall en? deavor to become acquainted with all the collections of interest to anthropol? ogy; to visit the sites of the discovery of the first as well as the most recent sec? ond Pithecanthropus, and any such excavations or sites of importance as I may learn of after my arrival. Hrdlicka continued his official travels throughout his career, acquainting himself with other paleoanthropologists, visiting ar? chaeological and paleontological sites, working in museums re? viewing their specimens, and establishing connections with in? dividuals and institutions for the purpose of obtaining primary artifactual material and human fossil casts for the museum. Involvement with the American School of Prehistoric Research The American School of Prehistoric Research, as it was later called, was established to train students in prehistory and to conduct field investigations of prehistoric sites, especially fa? mous localities in France (Figures 17-21). Establishing the school was considered a significant enterprise to its advocates as there were only five universities with doctoral programs in anthropology in the 1920s (Spencer, 1981; Griffin, 1985), and none had offered specific training in the Paleolithic. The organization began in 1921, when George Grant Mac? Curdy and Charles Peabody, of Yale University, officially ap? plied the name, the "American School in France for Prehistoric Studies." Just prior to its founding, Hrdlicka encouraged Pea? body in a letter to him dated 6 December 1920: "I am glad to hear from you and of your work in France. I regard the resump? tion [after World War I] of investigations of Early Man as of the utmost importance, and hope once to see established a spe? cial Association of patrons and workers in that line." The school was affiliated with the Archaeological Institute of America, an organization that studied ancient civilizations. MacCurdy was the school's first director; he was succeeded by Charles Peabody in 1922. The founding of the school marked the beginning of sustained research in the pre-literate history of Europe by American scholars (Patterson, 1995). In 1923, Hrdlicka became director of the school and in 1924, Mac? Curdy, who had just published major works on human origins (MacCurdy, 1924), assumed the directorship for the duration of 26 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 17 (left).?Photograph taken at La Madeleine, France. [M. Lesvignes is seated next to the cave entrance. Photograph by H. Ami, 1923. Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (number 96-10200).] FIGURE 18 (below).?Photograph taken at Laugerie Basse, France. [Photograph by H. Ami, 1924. Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (number 96-10314).] "i ^ VWoJctco i NUMBER 48 27 FIGURE 19.?Photograph taken at Cro-Magnon, France. [Labeled, "Room-like rock on hilltop. Five skeletons found below, under shelter." Photograph by H. Ami, 1923. Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (number 96-10329).] its activities (McCown, 1948). Based upon the accomplish? ments of the school during the 1920s and 1930s, MacCurdy is considered to have done more than any other American scholar of his generation to promote interest in Paleolithic archaeology (DeSimone, 1997). The first season's fieldwork of the American School in France for Prehistoric Studies opened on 2 July 1921, at the fa? mous Mousterian site of La Quina, in coordination with the well-known prehistorian Dr. Henri Martin. Martin was a medi? cal doctor who had found Neanderthal fossils at La Quina in 1910. A decade before the first season's work at La Quina, Hrdlicka had already established a relationship with Martin, meeting him in 1912. Long-term collaboration with Martin was probably a consequence of the importance attached to his Ne? anderthal discoveries (e.g., Martin, 1911, 1912a, 1912b). The activities of the school in 1921 were to last for nine weeks. This was followed by brief searches at other sites and excur? sions to other parts of France (MacCurdy, 1922). In a letter dated 31 July 1921, from France, MacCurdy wrote to Hrdlicka about their progress: "The School opened at La Quina on July 4 and our laboratory is gradually filling with specimens. Thus far we have found no skeletal remains of Neandertal Man; but we have found in a cave near La Quina four or five human teeth belonging to the Magdalenian epoch. Dr. Charles Peabody paid us a visit here on July 20. He seemed well pleased with the progress already made and with the outlook of the future." Hrdlicka also was interested in obtaining Neanderthal casts and material, as described in a letter to MacCurdy on 3 December 1921. "As soon as I get the address of Dr. Martin's modeller we shall order a copy of the reproduction of the skull and what- 28 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY N?* ->, FIGURE 20.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Haute, France. [Labeled, "Magdalenian, Solutrean, and Aurignacian Section." Note the small hand tools resting on top of the section, the fresh backdirt pile, and the fresh profile sec? tion with horizontal layers demarcated. Photograph by H. Ami, 1923. Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropolog? ical Archives, NMNH (number 96-10327). Men in photo are not identified.] ever other specimens he may have already. But I wonder if Dr. Martin would not wish to give the National Museum copies of these in exchange for some of our archaeological or other ma? terial. We would surely endeavor to give him a full equivalent. Due to congressional restrictions in our appropriation it is get? ting more and more difficult for the Institution to buy any? thing." Hrdlicka's involvement with the school increased in 1922. In a letter dated 20 January 1922, Peabody requested Hrdlicka's involvement and explained the informality of the workings of its board of directors. "Our Board meeting is a very simple af? fair, and the discussion has been so far informal and cordial, around a table. A consensus of opinion on the excavation work of next year in view of the possibilities is at hand, and of the fu? ture scope of the activities of the School." During that year, Pe? abody became the director of the school, supervising excava? tions at La Quina, where he dug trenches and recovered abundant artifact and faunal collections (Peabody, 1923). On 23 May 1922, Peabody wrote a cordial letter to Hrdlicka: "It is really a great pleasure to know that you are to be in France next fall; count on me for any possible aid that I can give. If we are still at La Quina we shall be much put about if you do not come there and see us. Dr. Martin's laboratory will interest you, though I believe the skull of La Quina is in Paris. Of course as you know, [Abbe Henri] Breuil (address c/o Museum de Pale- ontologie Humaine Paris) and [Marcellin] Boule (address c/o Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) are the ones you will hob nob with. I believe there is always some one, generally [Denis] Peyrony at Les Eyzies, where they have now a very important Museum." Just as Hrdlicka assumed directorship for the 1923 season, problems arose concerning the relationship between Martin and the school. Martin had long made clear his wish to control all activities at La Quina. He had purchased the site and had prevented local amateurs from digging at the excavation (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). The school's problems with Martin concerned excavation privileges and artifact shares and ownership. MacCurdy reviewed what he understood to be the terms of the agreement with Hrdlicka on 4 May 1923. "His [Martin's] original agreement in 1921 was that the School could have everything except human bones; apparently he [Martin] reserved the right to make new stipulations from year NUMBER 48 29 FIGURE 21.?Photograph taken at L'Abri du Chateau Les Eyzies, France. [Labeled, "During the visit of Dr. Hrdlicka and the School of Prehistoric [Research]." Photograph by H. Ami, 1923. Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (number 96-10326).] to year. By the same token we should be left free to accept his stipulations or leave out La Quina altogether as the School may think best." Apparently, Hrdlicka could not accept Martin's re? vision of the terms, diplomatically explaining his position to Peabody in a letter dated 5 May 1923: Regarding the agreement with Dr. Martin, the Committee was of the unani? mous opinion that it should not be signed for this year, but that matters should be in the most friendly spirit explained to Dr. Martin, to whom the School is much indebted, and that an arrangement be made with him for the reception of the School after its preliminary trip and for a short time only. I feel sure that he will see the justice of our procedure. On the same day, however, Hrdlicka wrote a blistering letter on the same subject to MacCurdy: "The contract with Martin is identical with that sent before. It is unworthy of the School and I will not have anything to do with it. The National Museum, even if it has the first choice, will not, I am sure, hog things and no trouble need to be anticipated." Instead of excavating at La Quina, Hrdlicka proposed to take students to Europe to meet with prominent scholars and to re? view sites and collections. Hrdlicka explained his position on the question of the La Quina excavation and the proposal to travel to Europe with students in his same letter to Peabody, on 5 May: The object is to give the students the best possible returns, and thus help to fur? ther raise the standards of the School. The intensive work at La Quina alone does not have sufficient attraction to the best of students, they know but little about the whole subject of Ancient Man and want some solid basis to start with. Under these conditions and in view of the kind of students we shall have this year it was deemed best to precede any local work by visits to and exami? nations of the most important sites of ancient man and of their yield in various parts of western and central Europe, and only then come to La Quina for exca? vation. The plan is feasible, for I have personal knowledge of practically all these sites as well as the specimens outside of France, and the firsthand knowl? edge thus gained of the whole field will be a great boon to the students, several of whom are instructors. I believe you will see the wisdom of this course, which may or need not be repeated in future years, according to conditions. During the summer and fall of 1923, for three-and-a-half months, Hrdlicka and his students visited dozens of sites, insti? tutions, and museums in western and central Europe (Hrdlicka, 1923). On 18 July 1923, Hrdlicka wrote to Hough at the mu? seum, about his travels in Europe: Things are going so well, and my days are so crowded that I find but little time for writing. Of all my trips to Europe this promises, in fact has been already, the most fruitful. I find everywhere but friendship and helpful hands, until at 30 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 22.?Photograph taken at Sergeac, France. [Labeled, "M. Castanet, Sergeac, September 4, 1923."] Note the deep excavation profile, the fresh section, backdirt, and the removed eboulis blocks and artifacts. [Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (number 96-10876).] times I am almost ashamed and apprehensive as to whether we shall ever be able to return this kindness. I strongly feel that, in our Institution at least, for all that is tendered to me I am sure belongs foremost to the Institution, we shall never be able to do enough for foreign men of science. During the summer, Hrdlicka received a letter from a per? turbed Peabody on 31 July 1923, explaining the French posi? tion, which he apparently agreed with: Before leaving the last time for America Mr. Hubert at St. Germain called me aside and had a very serious talk?Dr. Martin will explain his views at La Quina?I may say that I am absolutely in accordance with them?so is Mr. Hu? bert & he thinks that we Americans should know the situation. Dr. Martin owns La Quina?we are his guests at his invitation?such conditions as he makes are his right. The ambitions at other such sites would certainly be the same?Hu? bert is as you know, under the government & would & could do as he says. All the French have extended these years courtesies without number to the School & I feel in debt of him. It is entirely through me that the money for his life work has been the discovery of skeletal remains at this site and (with the addi? tion of flints & bones) the publication of them. In case of further discoveries in the American section, he cannot permit others to take over his own duty & privilege?& naturally he can not permit such exportations. Hubert agrees with him & if it were necessary would have a law passed tomorrow preventing it. Hrdlicka and his students did spend eight days with Martin at La Quina, but consistent with his statement, the school did not work at this site alone (Hrdlicka, 1923). In preparing for the 1924 season, Hrdlicka had discussions with European prehistorians about new sites. On 17 October 1923, Denis Peyrony, a French prehistorian and excavator of Neanderthals at La Ferrassie, contacted Hrdlicka concerning joint excavations in France proposed by M. Castanet (Figure 22). On 2 November 1923, Hrdlicka replied to Peyrony: Your good letter of October 17 has just reached me and I am glad to hear that the little contribution which I could make towards your work has been favor? ably received. I wish I could do more for you. Regarding the Sergeac proposi? tion (M. Castanet), I am urging the lease of the site as much as I am able, and it is not impossible that M. Peabody has been to see it before this reaches you. I have given practically all that remained of this year's expenses to the School and which was to have been my 'salary' to that end. I trust M. Castanet will be reasonable. I returned very happy that I could see all the work about Les Eyzies and particularly your own careful explorations at L'Augerie Haute [Figures 20, 23] together with the site at La Ferrassie. I feel convinced that the region is far from exhausted and that it will yield new and valuable evidence as the work progresses. At the same time, there was a growing disagreement between Hrdlicka and MacCurdy, on the one side, and Peabody, on the other, concerning the research focus of the school. Indicating he would not support the school in its new direction, Peabody wrote a terse letter to MacCurdy on 26 January 1924: "Need I say that I disclaim all responsibility in financing and direction of the School from this time on? The sum of three thousand dollars [about $31,543 in 2003 dollars] is too much for me to raise, the change of name substituting 'Europe' for 'France' does not meet my approval, and the enlargement of the com? paratively modest School of excavation and study seems to me unnecessary. The Managing Committee seem to have departed NUMBER 48 31 FIGURE 23.?Photograph taken at Laugerie Haute, France. [Labeled, "Solutrean fireplace, hearth pebbles." See Figure 20 for another view of the excavations. Photograph by H. Ami, 1923. Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (no. 96-10328). Man in photo is not identified.] from the ideas that Dr. Martin and I had in mind in founding the School and not to have kept in mind what the former has contributed to its successes." As a consequence, Hrdlicka and MacCurdy turned their efforts to broadening the work of the school. On 16 February 1924, Hrdlicka wrote to MacCurdy: "I think Peabody's letter settles matters quite definitively. It is plain that he still holds to the original small object which now has even become ever so much smaller. He feels of course bad about the change without perceiving that there is no alternative. If the School is to be worthy of its name it must be reorganized on broader and sound principles." Hrdlicka and MacCurdy began excavating other potential sites and developing relationships with other researchers. Hrdlicka wrote to Peyrony, on 25 June 1924: With the coming of warm weather, thoughts naturally turn again to field work. I presume you have been busy for many weeks already. This is to let you know that I have been trying hard to realize the plan I spoke to you about last year, namely the lease of the site at Sergeac; and there is some hope that at last the necessary amount for the leasing of the site may be raised. The School this year will be again under the direction of Professor MacCurdy who will have seven or eight excellent scholars with him, and the need of some good site which may be called the School Zone is very urgent. I trust you will help us again as you did last year, for both Dr. MacCurdy and myself have the fullest confidence in you. As a small return I have been trying to raise again a little sum for the help of your own Museum or exploration, and my wish is that we could contribute a little every year towards your meritorious work. But it is hard nowadays to raise money for scientific purposes, due to the heavy taxation that resulted from the war. I also wish to remind you that all here would be most thankful to you if you would notify us briefly as you may wish, of any possible important new finds of skeletal remains of Early Man in your district. Interest in Old World archaeology here is growing and we want to stimulate as much as possi? ble. On 9 July 1924, Peyrony replied to Hrdlicka's letter, approv? ing excavations with MacCurdy near Eyzies and indicating that the site at Sergeac would be acceptable. Hrdlicka immediately sought funding for the excavations, approaching the Research Committee of the Archaeological Society of Washington about the great potential of the site (Carroll, 1925). As a result, one of the trustees of the society paid a 10-year lease for exclusive rights to excavate at the rich Mousterian and Aurignacian rock- shelter site of Les Merveilles at Castel Merle, in the town of Sergeac (MacCurdy, 1925). The 1924 season also included ex? cavations at Solutre and visits to other institutions and muse? ums in France and Switzerland. After digging at Sergeac for a week, MacCurdy described the excavations in a letter to Hrdlicka, on 10 August 1924: "Six be? sides Mrs. MacC. and myself are at the diggings. A good deal of manual labor has been and will continue to be necessary. We already have as many specimens as we got at La Quina in 10 32 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY weeks." Hrdlicka was proud of this accomplishment, boasting about the excavations to prehistorian Henry Ami of the Geo? logical Survey of Ottawa, in a letter dated 26 August 1924: You will be interested to hear that the American School, at my instigation, has succeeded in leasing for ten years the very promising site at Sergeac. They have already begun work and Dr. MacCurdy writes me that they have recov? ered in one week more specimens than in ten weeks two years ago at La Quina. The main thing, however, is that the School will now have its own home in the richest region archaeologically of France. Ami was delighted to hear of this work, immediately re? sponding favorably in his letter of 30 August 1924: I am indeed much interested to learn that the 'American School' has succeeded in leasing the very promising site at Sergeac. How thrilling it would be [to be] there now, or at any time. By digging in these old habitations and reading the daily life and manners of these good old folks of the Palaeolithic Period in the fire-places where they cooked their meats, and where they fashioned their flint implements beside the much needed fires of the very frigid territories which they occupied, one can not but live over again that great past on which we de? pend so much, to which we owe so much, if we can only recognize it, and en? joy with them the sweet odours of their grills & feasts. The Sergeac excavations were considered the most success? ful season the school had had to date, and the digging contin? ued for several years, identifying stratified Upper and Middle Paleolithic horizons (MacCurdy, 1931). Extensive collections of artifacts were shipped to Washington, D.C, and accessioned at the National Museum, resulting in a collection of more than 4000 artifacts. MacCurdy was grateful to Hrdlicka, thanking him on 10 June 1926: "The School owes you a debt of gratitude for looking after its affairs so efficiently. We especially appre? ciate your willingness to help prepare students for the course in case they are able to go to Washington for that purpose before they sail." MacCurdy also delighted in the fact that rival Amer? ican institutions would no longer engage in excavation of sites or purchases of objects in France, thereby providing more op? portunity to the Archaeological Society of Washington for ad? ditional work, "Perhaps our best bit of news is from Collie, Cu? rator of the Logan Museum, Beloit College." He says: "It may relieve your mind to know that the Logan Museum has given up its plan and so far as I personally am concerned I doubt whether I should ever come to organize another one. The trou? ble and expense connected with the endeavor is so great that it would rather deter me from entering on the project again. Let us hope that this is the end of the Beloit movement in so far as it may effect our own School." On 11 February 1926, the American School of Prehistoric Research was incorporated in Washington, D.C, with both Hrdlicka and MacCurdy as trustees, for the purpose of fund raising and for the promotion of their scientific and teaching programs. Regarding the Smithsonian's role in the founding of the corporation, Hrdlicka explained this to Assistant Secretary Wetmore on February 19: "When it came to the question of the connections of the School with the Smithsonian, I told them that after a consultation with you I was not able to make defi? nite promises; I assured the School that the Institution will do for it the best that may be possible, but that a definite decision on any point must await special and detailed requests by the School. In other words, I tried to convey the impression that the Institution could not commit itself in general but that it will be glad to give its benevolent consideration to each request of the School when definitely made." The 1926 season included work in western and central Eu? rope, with a continuation of excavations in France (MacCurdy, 1927). During the same season, the MacCurdys visited Pales? tine, drawn by news that Neanderthal fossils had been recov? ered there in 1925. As a result of this trip, the school concen? trated its future research activities in Palestine, in joint sponsorship with the British School of Archaeology at Jerusa? lem. In 1927, the American School of Prehistoric Research continued its work in western Europe at Castel-Merle (Figure 24), but unlike previous years the directorship was assigned temporarily to students and several prospecting parties were sent into the field (MacCurdy, 1928). In 1928, the school conducted brief excavations in Kurdis? tan, Iraq, with the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (Garrod, 1930). At about the same time, the American School turned its focus to Palestine and the famous caves of Mount Carmel, Mugharet et-Tabun, Mugharet es-Skuhl, and Mugharet el-Wad, where excavations were conducted from 1929 to 1934 (MacCurdy, 1934, 1938). During this period, MacCurdy and Hrdlicka were interested primarily in the recovery of Neander? thal fossils, but although many archaeological artifacts were sent to the United States, little attention was given to these as? semblages. While these scholars were training students and leading major archaeological excavations overseas, their other activities (teaching and writing) continued unabated after the start of the Great Depression. To rally support for the school and to attract students, Mac? Curdy composed an advertisement dated 1 March 1929 for mailing: Would you not like to become a subscriber to the funds of the American School of Prehistoric Research and thus have a share in solving the prehistoric prob? lems which bear on the when, where and how of human origins? Our School is the only American institution incorporated for the purpose of solving these problems. The ninth summer session will open in Europe in July. For nine years we have been training students to teach the subject, to do field work and to be curators in museums and during the nine years, we have added materially to the prehistoric collections in a number of museums. In addition to our sum? mer training School, we are carrying on expeditions manned in part by the stu? dents we have trained. In order to expand we need not only additional funds for current expenses, but also endowment. Through our present collaboration with the British we have a most valuable permit to excavate in the British mandates of Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordania. Unless we take advantage of the opportu? nities open to us through this permit, it will eventually go to others. We com? pleted a most successful joint expedition in Sulaimani in December, which means additional collections for our museums. This month we begin jointly with the British School of Archaeology at Jerusalem to excavate paves on Mt. Carmel which have already yielded some remarkable examples of cave art. And this is only a beginning, a foretaste of what may be expected with suffi? cient support. We need your help and on the other hand we are convinced that whatever amount you may put into this going concern will be money wisely spent on your part. NUMBER 48 33 0 v ^ : . - . - ? i?SL FIGURE 24.?Postcard of Castel-Merle, France. The card was sent to Hrdlicka and is labeled, "Christmas Greet? ings from the MacCurdy's, 1927." MacCurdy and other excavators are shown at the excavation. [Hrdlicka col? lection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH (no. 96-10871).] During each season, the American School, acting jointly with the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, con? ducted extensive excavations at the Mount Carmel sites (Mac? Curdy, 1934). Dorothy Garrod, of the British School, directed the excavations for five seasons (1929-1931, 1933, 1934) and Theodore McCown, associated with the American School and a faculty member at the University of California, Berkeley, di? rected the 1932 excavations. In May of 1931, McCown discov? ered the first of a series of Neanderthal skeletons in the Mugh? aret es-Skuhl cave, and, in 1932, he was invited to direct the excavations (Kennedy, 1997). These excavations were to be monumental in their findings, uncovering assemblages from the Lower Paleolithic to the Mesolithic (or now Epi-Pale- olithic), including human fossils and significant Middle Pale? olithic assemblages. The excavations were thorough for that period, with relatively well-controlled provenience and fully labeled artifact assemblages (Penniman, 1974). Approximately 100,000 artifacts were recovered from Wadi El-Mughara. Arti? facts were sent to 40 institutions, including 26 museums in the Near East and Europe and 14 museums in the United States, in? cluding the U.S. National Museum (approximately 3700 arti? facts, or 3.7% of the 100,000 assemblages, which was slightly more than the number supplied to the other 39 institutions). The recovery of more human fossils was extremely impor? tant, and Hrdlicka, complaining about access, was anxious to review the new specimens, as he wrote to MacCurdy on 5 May 1932: "Happy to read of the discovery in Palestine. I wonder if we could not get the privilege of examining the specimens here in this country. It does not feel good to play seconds to the Eu? ropeans all the time and then perhaps be obliged to do the work over." MacCurdy responded somewhat gingerly to Hrdlicka on 9 May 1932, indicating that the British School had observed proper procedures, and also that Sir Arthur Keith, an anatomist who was already an authority on the subject (e.g., Keith, 1925, 1931), would review the specimens. "Miss Garrod began by sending the remains to Sir Arthur Keith of London, which seemed the proper thing to do. If I attend the Congress in Lon? don August 1-7, where all these remains will be on exhibition, I will discuss this matter with Miss Garrod as well as Sir Arthur Keith." Recognizing the extreme importance of the presumed Nean? derthal specimens, Hrdlicka apparently gave up hope of having the specimens shipped to the United States, and instead, in a 34 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY letter to MacCurdy on 12 May 1932, he volunteered to go to London to study the fossils: "If we would get the privilege of working up the three skeletons after they were brought into suitable condition for examination in London, I might be will? ing, in view of the importance of the matter, to go to London for the work." MacCurdy presented Hrdlicka's request to the British. At the same time that these letters were exchanged, more human fos? sils were uncovered at Mount Carmel by Theodore McCown, who represented the American School, as described by Mac? Curdy on 7 June 1932: I have written to Miss Garrod and to Prof. J.L. Myres concerning your willing? ness to go to London in order to work over the human skeletal material found in the four caves by the joint expedition of our School with the British. You will be interested to know that Mr. McCown has found four more skeletons in the same cave, making seven in all during the first two weeks in May, or eight including the child found a year ago. MacCurdy received a reply from the British School, and on 23 September 1932, he informed Hrdlicka that the request to analyze the specimens was rejected because McCown deserved to be the primary author of the fossil descriptions: I wrote to Miss Garrod on June 1..., saying that our Trustees thought an Amer? ican specialist should be joint author with Sir. Arthur Keith when it came to studying and publishing the human skeletal remains from the four caves near Mt. Carmel. I suggested your name. Both Miss G[arrod] and Keith feel that so far as the nine Neandertal skeletons are concerned, such an arrangement would be unfair to McCown. Keith finally told Miss G. that he would 'not participate in any arrangement which does not make McCown principal author.' She wrote me to this effect saying she was in complete agreement with Keith. This is a point we can afford to concede so far as the nine Neandertalians are con? cerned. If you have in mind a study of only the Neandertal material the prob? lem would be somewhat simplified provided of course that you agree to let Mc? Cown be nominally the principal author. Keith's contribution and yours could follow McCown's under the same cover, or at least be issued simultaneously. The big and costly job now is to detach the Neandertalians from their stony ma? trix. This will take many months. McCown is now teaching at Berkeley and does not plan to join Keith in London until next May. He was here with us a day (Aug. 12). We took him to Holyoke to see Chairman Green and tried to make it plain to him, that you also should have an opportunity to study the Ne? andertal remains and write up the results for publication. Both Keith and Miss G. want him to have every opportunity to make the most of his lucky find. So do we; but we feel that our School should have something to say in naming the specialists, where help is needed outside those who actually made the finds. Donald Scott, Dir.[ector] of the Peabody Museum of Harvard (also a trustee of our School), will be in London the 1st of Nov. He has consented to discuss this matter with Keith and Myres (Miss G. is in Palestine until the end of Dec). If you still want to go to London to study the skeletons, kindly let me know so that I may communicate your decision to Scott before he leaves London. We are assuming that in case you go you would finance the trip yourself. Hrdlicka responded on 26 September, indicating that this matter was not for personal gain, but was of importance for maintaining the scientific reputation of the American School. In emphasizing such an approach, Hrdlicka relinquished his personal involvement in examining the fossils, and instead he suggested that McCown and the American School should pro? vide the fossil descriptions and be part of future publications: I should be happy indeed to undertake the work in question, under such equita? ble arrangements as could be made. This [is] not from any personal ambition, but to safeguard the interests of our School and of American science in general. It is just, it seems to me, that we participate in the study and report on the spec? imens, and that particularly in view of their highly interesting characters, as in? dicated by the reports that have so far come to our hands. I should be quite con? tent if some one else, say you or [Ernest] Hooton [professor of physical anthropology, Harvard] would charge himself with this work. But if that were impracticable, then I should stand ready to do whatever might be needed. I have, of course, nothing but the most cordial friendship and admiration for Sir Arthur Keith, and were not other important factors involved, I should be happy to see everything in his hands. With the amount of material it seems to me there may be enough for all. McCown should by all means head the volume with a detailed account of the discovery. And as to the description of the skeletal re? mains, perhaps we could so divide with Sir Arthur that I would undertake the general description of the remains, while he would devote himself to the most interesting and valuable part of the study which will be that of the brain cavities and casts, for which he would have more time at his disposal. Sir Arthur has al? ways been one of my closest and esteemed European friends, so that I am very confident we could work out everything in the closest harmony and with mu? tual helpfulness. It seems to me such an arrangement as here suggested would adequately safeguard, both for the present and for the future...the interests of our School, and of the standing of American Anthropology in general. We do not deserve to appear perpetually in a position of inferiority to our colleagues abroad. The work has been carried on with American money, by an American young scientist, under the auspices of the American School. To give non- Americans the complete right of the report and study on and of the specimens would be a blow and a precedent from which it would be hard to recover, and for which a very serious blame might be incurred. Reaching a consensus concerning this sensitive research matter, MacCurdy wrote to Hrdlicka, on 10 October 1932, indi? cating that he would contact all parties concerned: I have your letter of Sept. 26 and am sending copies of it to Chairman Green, Director Scott of Harvard Peabody,... Sir Arthur Keith, and Mr. McCown. I am sure all of them will appreciate your attitude in the matter. I feel quite sure that both Keith and McCown have in mind that McCown also is to make a study of the nine skeletons in addition to a detailed account of the discovery. This is a matter that can no doubt be arranged in a manner satisfactory to all concerned. Between 1933 and 1937, most of the fossil material was for? warded to the Royal College of Surgeons, London, where Mc? Cown and Sir Arthur Keith conducted their study (Kennedy, 1997). A series of articles about the specimens and the archaeo? logical implications of the discoveries at the caves appeared in the Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, authored by British and American authors (Garrod, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1937; McCown, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936; Keith and McCown, 1937; Beggs, 1938). Hrdlicka never published on the fossil specimens, but he did ensure that the American School participated in the research, with McCown as primary or secondary author of several works. Although MacCurdy was a major influence on the joint expedition and was supported vigorously by Hrdlicka, neither man apparently participated in the excavations. The Mount Carmel excavations eventually culminated in monumental works by the joint expedition, in? cluding The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: Excavations at the Wady El-Mughara (Garrod and Bate, 1937) and The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: The Fossil Human Remains from the Leval- loiso-Mousterian (McCown and Keith, 1939). The discovery of the Mount Carmel hominids provided support for Hrdlicka's (1927) earlier proposition that the Neanderthal phenotype was marked by an expression of morphological variation (Spencer and Smith, 1981). In accordance with the joint agreements, the NUMBER 48 35 Smithsonian received its annual allotments of Middle Pale? olithic artifact assemblages from these excavations. JAMES TOWNSEND RUSSELL, JR. Career and the Old World Archaeology Fund James Townsend Russell, Jr., enrolled as a student in 1925 with the American School of Prehistoric Research, during its formative years (Figure 25). Russell participated in the first stages of excavation at Sergeac, France, during the 1926 sea? son, and he was named a trustee of the school thereafter. Rus? sell remained in France for several years, working either inde? pendently or with the Abbe Henri Breuil, a well-known French prehistorian. The Russell family had several residences, includ? ing one in France, and upon inheritance of a considerable for? tune from his father's estate, Russell became the sponsor of the Smithsonian's Old World Archaeology Fund. Russell had seri? ous academic interests and was considered a promising young scholar, as well as an important financial supporter of the exca? vations in France. Russell temporarily directed excavations conducted by the school. He also published articles based upon that work (Russell, 1928, 1929) and translated Luquet's (1926) influential book, L 'Art et la Religion des Hommes Fossiles (Luquet, 1930; MacCurdy, 1930). In addition to Russell's contact with Hrdlicka from his earli? est involvement with the American School, he also contacted the Smithsonian in an effort to secure a position in archaeol? ogy. Assistant Secretary Wetmore responded to Russell's re? quest in a letter dated 18 October 1928: Following our recent conversation I have discussed our collections in Old World archeology with Dr. Hough, and have examined some of the material personally. At your convenience I should appreciate it if you can come down to talk over your proposal for work on these specimens with Mr. Neil M. Judd who I believe told you will have these materials under his charge when we ef? fect the reorganization planned for the near future. This meeting resulted in Russell's temporary appointment as an assistant in archaeology in 1928. Although Hrdlicka secured excavation rights at Sergeac in France, it was Russell who initially had mentioned the possibil? ity that the Archaeological Society of Washington could lease the site for the American School of Prehistoric Research. In a letter to Wetmore, on 3 April 1929, Russell indicated that the funds may be available: I take the liberty of writing you entirely unofficially and confidentially in re? gard to a matter which I think would be of interest to the Smithsonian Institu? tion. The Archaeological Society of Washington has the funds necessary to buy for excavation a prehistoric site on the southern [sic, northern] slope of the Pyrenees from which it wishes the collections of the United States National Museum to benefit. In order to do as much good as possible it is proposed that the Society cooperate with the American School of Prehistoric Research in Eu? rope in the working of the site. Wetmore, with Hrdlicka's approval, was apparently enthusi? astic about this proposal, as the lease was quickly granted. Shortly thereafter, Russell was granted a position as collabora- FlGURE 25.?James Townsend Russell, Jr., pictured in the Binghamton Press, on 10 August 1932. [In an article entitled, "Tells Tales of Cavemen." The cap? tion to the photograph reads "J. Townsend Russell, who told the Kiwanians today how their acts were influenced by lives of their cavemen ancestors."] tor in Old World Archaeology. Russell's appointment was ac? knowledged by Wetmore on 17 May 1929: It is my pleasure to send you herewith designation to the honorary position of collaborator in Old World Archeology, under the Smithsonian Institution. We are greatly pleased to have you associated with us in this capacity. Your inter? est in this work, particularly as regards our collections, is gratifying, and I hope may continue to mutual advantage. Russell, with his inheritance, established the Old World Ar? chaeology Fund as an endowment. The fund provided support for salaries, exhibit improvements, expenses, and the purchase of collections. Russell also solicited outside funds, as described in Russell's letter to Neil Judd, a Smithsonian anthropologist, on 9 February 1930: "You will be glad to hear that I have se? cured a pledge of five hundred dollars to buy specimens for the Museum collection. It comes from Evelyn Pierpont a rich old lady and old friend of my family." Purchasing collections was a difficult task, however, because of the high cost of objects, as Russell described to Wetmore on 27 June 1930: 36 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Since 1 have been here I have done a great deal of searching for material for sale that would be of use to our collections and I must say that the outlook is not at all good. Certain American museums have sent men over here in late years that have combed the field leaving little and paying prices that has sent the market value beyond all reason. As you say for every authentic piece to be had there is a fake that deceives even experts. At present I feel convinced that our museum should only have material that is collected by original research. Russell limited his purchases to casts and paintings, as de? scribed to Wetmore on 6 August 1930: "The situation for find? ing collections for our museum has not altered. I secured valu? able objects for our collections consisting of casts numbering about 10 in all. For this purpose, I used Miss Pierpont's money. I also ordered copies of the Spanish cave paintings which will be very worth our while." Wetmore, agreed with Russell, on 20 August 1930, stating that the casts will be useful and the copies of the Spanish cave paintings should be excellent, further noting: I agree with you that it is not advisable to pay too high prices for archaeological material from western Europe. While it may be advisable to purchase a few ex? ceptional pieces that are valued highly, a general buying of that kind is hardly warranted. It is almost certain that sooner or later there will come some oppor? tunity to acquire some comprehensive collection, perhaps by gift. Excavations in France Considering the expense of purchasing objects, Russell turned to collaborative excavation in order to obtain French Pa? leolithic collections. During the time Hrdlicka concentrated his attention on the American School and supported the work in Palestine, Russell worked with the famous prehistorian, Count Henri Begouen, a professor at the University of Toulouse, and attempted to secure an agreement to excavate in France. During the summer of 1931, the Smithsonian conducted archaeological research projects in departements Haute Garonne and Ariege, France, in an informal collaboration with the University of Toulouse. As a result of this work, a formal agreement was made between the two institutions to continue similar investi? gations for ten years {Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, 1932:23). The joint agreement received some publicity in a brief article published in The New York Times on 3 December 1931, "Smithsonian to Work with French College." Russell promoted such international collaboration, as he was quoted in the Binghamton Press, in August of 1932: The Smithsonian Institution has as its greatest aim the dissemination of knowl? edge, in other words education in whatever lines may be found of value. This work is not carried on for the benefit of a few scholars living in Washington but for the country as a whole, and greater still, for the world in general. In connec? tion with this great work the Smithsonian has been carrying on research in col? laboration with one of the governmental institutions of France. While the re? sults and outlay are shared by our two countries this has the happy effect of accumulating knowledge and at the same time it promotes international friend? ship as an aid to world peace. Peace is and should be the paramount aim of ev? ery individual and nation. The results of war are too evident to be discussed and I only need to say that in this regard my feeling is one of great optimism for future generations if not for our own. Under the terms of the Franco-American agreement, the Smithsonian was granted access to three Upper Paleolithic sites, Marsoulas, Tarte, and Roquecourbere. The agreement provided for collaboration between the two institutions, with the burden of the work to be mutually shared. The University of Toulouse furnished the excavation concession and the Smithsonian Institution paid the expenses. Under the terms of the agreement, the rarest and most important discoveries were to remain in France as the property of the University of Tou? louse, whereas other objects were to be divided equally be? tween the two parties (the French share of the collections re? mains in the Natural History Museum of Toulouse). At the conclusion of the excavations at the three sites, how? ever, there was considerable disappointment because only lim? ited deposits were found. Despite this fact, an article on the ini? tial work at the sites was published in English, "Report on Archeological Research in the Foothills of the Pyrenees" (Rus? sell, 1932), and in French, "La Campagne de Fouilles de 1931 a Marsoulas, Tarte et Roquecourbere" (Begouen and Russell, 1933). Although the University of Toulouse had no other sites that it could offer to continue this cooperative enterprise, another agreement was sought with the Ministry of the Beaux Arts to excavate some of the most famous Upper Paleolithic cave art sites. Concerning these potential excavations, Russell wrote to Wetmore, on 2 December 1932: During the month of September which I spent in France, 1 had several confer? ences with the Abbe Breuil, Professor of Prehistory at the College of France, and Count Begouen, Professor of Prehistory at the University of Toulouse, both of whom are members of the Beaux Arts Commission for classified monu? ments in France. These gentlemen expressed considerable satisfaction at the re? sults of the collaboration in excavation between the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Toulouse, and felt that the scope of the work should be extended. They expressed the opinion that the Beaux Arts Ministry itself might be willing to collaborate with the Smithsonian Institution for further work and that they would favor the cave Mas d'Azil as a site for such cooperative exca? vation. Mas d'Azil is one of the largest caves in France containing an unusually large prehistoric level of the Upper Paleolithic and Azilian, or transition culture to the Neolithic of which it is the type station. As such, it is the site most wor? thy of excavation in France, while in the past it has only been superficially worked. I suggest, therefore, that a formal request be made to the French gov? ernment for this privilege. This proposal was strongly supported by the Smithsonian Administration, and on 10 February 1933, Secretary Charles Abbott wrote to the United States Secretary of State, seeking his assistance through the American Ambassador in Paris: It has been suggested that the Ministry of the Beaux Arts might be willing to consider such a form of collaboration at one of the Upper Paleolithic or related sites under its control, possibly in the cave at Mas d'Azil or some equally im? portant area, with a similar understanding, i.e., that the Smithsonian Institution would pay all expenses of the work, that the most important finds would re? main in France, and that the remainder would be divided, a part coming to America for the Smithsonian Institution. Russell's Smithsonian activities were greatly appreciated, and on 13 May 1933, he was made an honorary assistant cura? tor of Old World Archaeology. NUMBER 48 37 An Abrupt End to a Promising Career All of these excavation plans in France ended suddenly when Russell became severely ill in the fall of 1933 and was admit? ted to a sanitarium. On 5 April 1934, Arthur Moritz, Russell's estate attorney, wrote to Assistant Secretary Wetmore: "It is highly desirable that while at the sanitarium Mr. Russell be en? gaged in some constructive work of the type he is particularly interested in. I have been thinking that perhaps you could send him an assignment of some kind which would keep him occu? pied for a considerable period of time." In response to the request of Russell's attorney, Wetmore wrote to Russell on 19 April 1934: Mr. Judd and I have spoken frequently of you, and your work in archeology, and I trust that your studies are proceeding favorably and to your satisfaction. In connection with this it has occurred to me that you might find it profitable and interesting to make literal translation of some of the papers dealing with prehistoric man in western Europe that have appeared in French. No evidence was found that Russell began the translations, although correspondence between Russell and Smithsonian staff continued throughout 1935. After 1932, Russell never en? gaged in archaeological work. He did retain his title as assistant curator of Old World Archaeology until 1952, corresponding with Wetmore and Judd and providing financial support until 1954. In his last will and testament, sealed on 13 March 1962, Russell bequeathed the Smithsonian Institution his collection of anthropological material, which was already in the mu? seum's possession, including his books, photographs, and arti? fact collections. The Modern Era of Paleoanthropology T. Dale Stewart and the Post-World War II Period After World War II, the U.S. National Museum continued collecting natural history specimens, leading to large increases in the collections (Yochelson, 1990). The post-war era was a period of growth and prosperity in American archaeology, with increasing numbers of institutions and individuals in? volved in archaeological research (Patterson, 1995). This growth of archaeology in the United States, however, was not reflected in the growth of Old World Paleolithic collections nor was it reflected in significant paleoanthropological activ? ity at the Smithsonian. The curtailed development of Old World Paleolithic collections was likely the result of a lack of a full-time curator of Old World Paleolithic archaeology or paleoanthropology and the passage of antiquity laws by for? eign governments that forbade the export of artifacts from the countries of origin. After Hrdlicka's tenure, the curator in charge of physical an? thropology and Old World collections was T. Dale Stewart (Figure 26). Stewart was hired by the U.S. National Museum (the U.S. National Museum (USNM) was established in 1842 and ceased existence as an administrative unit in 1967) in 1924 as a temporary aide to Hrdlicka. He became an assistant curator in 1931, the same year he received his medical degree from Johns Hopkins. Hrdlicka also had a degree in medicine; very few of their predecessors had degrees in physical anthro? pology (Spencer, 1982). Stewart was promoted to associate curator in 1939 and then curator in 1942. He served as the di? rector of the Natural History Museum from 1963 to 1966 (the Museum of Natural History (MNH) was renamed the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in 1969), and briefly served as assistant secretary of the institution in 1966. After his retirement in 1971, he continued his affiliation with the museum as curator emeritus until his death in 1997. Stewart had many research interests, including human genetics, study- FlGURE 26.?Photograph of T. Dale Stewart examining a Shanidar Neander? thal, 1958. [Solecki collection, National Anthropological Archives (MS 7091), NMNH.l 38 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY ing New World skeletal populations, Neanderthals and their evolutionary position, and forensic anthropology (Angel, 1976). During the 1950s, the major accession to the museum's Old World collections came from Shanidar cave, Iraq, primarily through a large donation from the Iraq Museum. Dr. Ralph Solecki, who discovered the site, was a curator in the Depart? ment of Anthropology at the NMNH for a brief period and had supervised the excavations at Shanidar. Beginning in 1954, the archaeological work at Shanidar was supported by the National Science Foundation (Patterson, 1995). In 1958 and 1960, Stew? art studied Neanderthal remains in Iraq (Ubelaker, 1997), which eventually led him to publish several articles on Nean? derthal anatomy (Stewart, 1958, 1962, 1965, 1977). Another important addition to the collections was a donation from the Uganda Museum in 1965, through Dr. Glen Cole. The Uganda accession included a sizeable sample of excavated artifacts from the sites of Magosi and Nsongezi, Rwanda. Although rel? atively small, collections from other sites in Iran were obtained from archaeologists Frank Hole and Kent Flannery (who was affiliated with the museum) in 1966. Although Stewart dedicated some of his research efforts to the study of the Shanidar Neanderthals, little other Old World Paleolithic research was conducted at the Smithsonian from the 1950s through the 1970s. Human origins studies and archaeo? logical field work were essentially unrepresented in the mu? seum's permanent research staff, except by appointment of Re? search Associates John Yellen and Alison Brooks in the 1970s. Few collections were acquired and primary Paleolithic re? search at the National Museum essentially ceased during this period, although some exhibits and dioramas were created for public education (Figure 27). Beyond the Smithsonian, the connection between physical anthropology and Paleolithic ar? chaeology continued and strengthened. By the 1980s, the field of paleoanthropology had emerged as a purposeful union of physical anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology, environmental sciences, and primate and ethnographic re? search. FIGURE 27.?Exhibit in the National Museum of Natural History, photographed in 2001. [The simulated excava? tion was created in the 1970s and depicts Olduvai and other sites. The stone tools arranged in the background were drawn from the collections and show variation in Paleolithic typology and technology. The Human Family Tree was created in the late 1990s and shows scenarios for hominid evolution from 5 million years ago to the present.] NUMBER 48 39 The Human Origins Program The most recent involvement of the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in paleoanthropological research has been marked by the hiring of Richard Potts in 1985 as an assis? tant curator in physical anthropology. The decision to hire a re? search curator in hominid evolution coincided with the devel? opment of human origins as an important and relatively well- funded area of inquiry during the last several decades (Patter? son, 1995). Since 1985 there has been a large increase in Smithsonian field projects and research activities related to early hominids, with the corresponding collection of large sam? ples of Paleolithic artifacts, fossil animal remains, and contex? tual information. Reflecting the integration of multiple disciplines, recent NMNH research has focused on the behavioral and ecological dimensions of human evolutionary history. Although largely influenced by interests in human biological evolution, paleo- ecology, and the geological sciences, Smithsonian researchers have applied the excavation methods of Paleolithic archaeol? ogy to sites and have sought to answer behavioral questions concerning hominid subsistence, technology, and interactions with the environment. The application of these archaeological methods was influenced by Potts' earlier work at Olduvai Gorge (e.g., Potts, 1982, 1983, 1988) and have continued to de? velop during more than 15 years of Smithsonian sponsored re? search in East Africa, particularly at Olorgesailie, Kenya. By 1990, a formal Human Origins Program had been orga? nized at the NMNH with four major goals: (1) to conduct orig? inal field research on the ecological aspects of human evolution (Figures 28-35); (2) to develop a new exhibition hall of human origins; (3) to establish an international paleoanthropological consortium devoted to the worldwide comparison of fossils and archaeological sites; and (4) to develop educational programs and databases concerning human evolution. Staff of the Human Origins Program are creating the homi? nid fossil cast collection in the Division of Physical Anthropol? ogy and are conducting new research on the Old World Pale? olithic collections. The Smithson Light Isotope Laboratory, which performs stable isotopic analysis of ancient and modern soil carbonates, also operates under the auspicies of the Human Origins Program. The principal focus of the program, however, - i ' " t& FIGURE 28.?International research team directed by Richard Potts (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Insti? tution) at the Olorgesailie Prehistoric Site. [A collaborative project of the National Museums of Kenya and the Smithsonian Institution.] 40 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 29.?Excavation conducted by the Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution, of an elephant (Elephas recki) butchery site in Member 1 of the Olorgesailie Formation, southern Kenya. continues to be long-term field projects in Africa, India, and man Ecological History, and by the Smithsonian's Scholarly China in collaboration with foreign institutions and scholars. Studies Program. These projects have been funded since 1992, primarily by Con- The professional staff of the program maintains its status in gressional appropriation, under the NMNH budget heading Hu- two ways: (1) by the long-term appointment of research associ- NUMBER 48 41 FIGURE 30.?Smithsonian excavation at Kanjera North on the Homa Peninsula, western Kenya, a collaborative project of the National Museums of Kenya and the Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution. ates (including archaeologists Alison Brooks in 1972, John E. Yellen in 1974, and Michael Petraglia in 1988); and (2) by the development of a new faculty position in hominid paleobiology at George Washington University, beginning with the appoint? ment of Bernard Wood as the Henry Luce Professor of Human Origins and Senior Adjunct Scientist in the Smithsonian's Hu? man Origins Program. The research associates have established programs of Paleolithic archaeological research in Botswana, Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), Ethiopia (Brooks and Yellen), and India (Petraglia) Since 1985, more Old World Paleolithic investigations have been conducted by Smithsonian researchers than during any other period in the his? tory of the institution. This research activity has not resulted in collections accessions (Figure 7), however, because materials are now curated primarily in the countries of origin. Overview Since the initial collection of materials in 1869, a number of individuals, including Smithsonan administrators and research? ers, were responsible for the development of the Paleolithic collection. Secretaries Henry and Baird were directly involved in the collection of material for research and display, but it was not until the research appointment of Thomas Wilson that more diverse and substantial collections came to the National Mu? seum. The material was obtained primarily for comparative purposes and for exhibition. The American School of Prehis? toric Research, under the aegis of Ales Hrdlicka, did most of the collecting in the 1920s and 1930s. In the later years of the school, the collections eventually broadened as a result of exca? vations in the Middle East. James Russell's excavations, al? though brief, brought substantial collections to the Smithso? nian, supplementing French materials that were already represented in the National Museum. In the post-World War II era, the Smithsonian was no longer engaged in the acquisition of substantial Paleolithic collections. T. Dale Stewart became a curator of physical anthropology and conducted substantial an? alytical research on Neanderthals from Shanidar, Iraq. Several collections were acquired in the 1950s and 1960s, including those from Shanidar and from localities in Iran and Uganda. Although collections now remain in their home countries, the current Human Origins Program has become widely engaged in the archaeology of many countries, including Kenya, Zaire, Botswana, Ethiopia, India, and China. The following sections of this book will document how and why accessions were ob? tained during the period 1869-1990, and the final section will place the current Human Origins Program (1990 to present) in the context of the history of the U.S. National Museum. 42 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 31.?International team excavation at Katanda 2, in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), directed by John Yellen (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution, and National Science Foundation). NUMBER 48 43 FIGURE 32.?International team excavation at Katanda 16, in Zaire (now Dem? ocratic Republic of the Congo), directed by Alison Brooks (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution, and George Washington University). FIGURE 33.?Joint excavation at the Lakhmapur locality, in the Malaprabha Valley, India, co-directed by Ravi Korisettar (Karnatak University, India) and Michael Petraglia (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution). 44 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 34.?Joint excavation at the Isampur Site, Hunsgi Valley, India, co-directed by K. Paddayya (Deccan College, India) and Michael Petraglia (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution). FIGURE 35.?Excavation in the Bose Basin, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China, co-directed by Huang Weiwen (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Academia Sinica, China) and Richard Potts (Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution). The Paleolithic Accessions, 1869-1990 The following is a general chronology of Paleolithic acces? sions. Donations and purchases are listed by individuals or in? stitutions. This section presents the relevant correspondence concerning the acquisition of the Paleolithic accessions and a description of the circumstances involved in the collection of the artifact assemblages from 1869 to 1990. The last section provides a synopsis and remarks about the future of Paleolithic research and of museum-based investigations. Because we could not possibly re-evaluate and re-classify all the artifacts within a modern framework, we use general terms in the con? struction of the comprehensive listing in Table 4 (e.g., chipped stone, bone), rather than the INQUIRE artifact typology, which uses historic typology terms that have inaccuracies. Because fauna may be of interest to researchers, preliminary identifica? tions made in 1987 by Melinda Zeder are provided (Table 5). Lartet (ace. 1529,3546) The first recorded contribution of Old World Paleolithic arti? facts to the U.S. National Museum (ace. 1529) occurred in 1869. The collection was a gift from Edouard Lartet, a paleon? tologist and pioneer in French prehistory, whose career began in 1834 (Fischer, 1873; Ferembach, 1997). A second collection of artifacts was accessioned as a gift (ace. 3546) in 1874, after his death in 1871. These collections were donated at the end of Lartet's long career; thus, they can be viewed as a sample of Lartet's lifetime of work of site surveys. The donations con? sisted of an assortment of both original artifacts and casts from localities in France, England, and Italy. Lartet, working with English banker Henry Christy, discov? ered many important Paleolithic sites in western Europe, and both researchers proposed a now famous sequence of ages, which divided the times during which "Primitive Man" had lived, based upon associations with extinct animals (i.e., Age of the Cave Bear, Age of the Elephant and Rhinoceros, Age of the Reindeer, Age of the Aurochs). Lartet and Christy's associ? ation ultimately culminated in the major site compendium of the time, Reliquae Aquitanicae (1865-1875). Correspondence between Lartet and Secretary Henry con? cerning Smithsonian Old World acquisitions began in 1868. This early correspondence showed the interest of Smithsonian officials in obtaining Paleolithic collections. The correspon? dence is fairly extensive and detailed, describing the materials exchanged and their places of origin. On 17 November 1868, Henry wrote to inquire about the possibility of obtaining Old World Paleolithic material. Lartet replied on 4 March 1869, stating that objects would be sent to the Smithsonian. The letter described particular objects, including chipped stone, bone, and breccia from a number of locations in western Europe. Here, at Paris, I had prepared a...box which...contains, besides a certain num? ber of moulds of the principal specimens of art and industry figured in the Rel? iquae Aquitanicae, some original arrows, needles, & other fragments of the hom of the Reindeer wrought, some of them bearing marks and one with the outline of an animal carved, etc. There will be found a considerable quantity of silex of different types characterizing chiefly our Paleolithic stations of Perig- ord and other regions of France. I have taken care to direct to you only objects which are not to be had in com? merce. The box contains also fossil bones; but the short & flat bones are all that have remained entire, those which had a medullary cavity having been broken or cleft by the indigenous of the epoch. I have thought proper to add to this re? mittance two small specimens of breccia from Les Eyzies, of which one en? closes a jaw of the reindeer with the upper molars, and the other a fragment of an antler. Each specimen will be found to bear its label, except some fossil bones dis? persed through the box, and which, if I have not attached a label, may be con? sidered as coming from the rock-shelter (abris sous rocher) of the Madalaine in Perigord. You will find also five specimens of a type analogous to those of St. Acheul, which come from a new repository (Tilly) of the department of the Al- lias (France) and which 1 believe to be of very great antiquity. Finally, M. Re- bourg, who has been for a number of years engaged in collecting rare speci? mens of wrought silex in the diluvium of Paris, has been good enough to add to my package some of those specimens, which I offer you in his name with a note from him and a section of the stratum. You will find in the box a ticket indicating a certain number of pieces of carved silex proceeding from the burying-place of Cro-Magnon, figured in the VII part of the Reliquae Aquitanicae; the human skulls exhumed from the same place are represented in part VI of the same work. Among the French materials donated by Lartet in this first accession, those from La Madeleine [also Madelaine] stand out in the number of stone tools and worked bone and antler pieces. A number oi sagaies from La Madeleine show basal splitting and flattening and characteristic working of the points (Figure 36). Labels affixed to many of the artifacts include the initials "L/C" (Lartet and Christy), the date "1863," and site provenience information (e.g., "La Madelaine, Dordogne, France"). Among the artifacts are pieces with lateral incising and chevron-shaped incising at their distal ends. Several exam? ples have elaborately engraved midsections (Figure 37). Har? poons from La Madeleine display incising and engraving at their barbs and in their midsections (Figure 38). Among the most spectacular and rarest pieces from La Madeleine is a Ba? ton de Commandement, a rare and enigmatic Upper Paleolithic artifact, surmised to function as a utilitarian shaft-straightener or as a symbol in special ceremonial contexts (Figure 39). As mentioned by Lartet in his letter of 4 March 1869, one of the antler pieces bears "the outline of a carved animal," which al? most certainly is a horse, based upon the appearance of its snout, eye, body, front and back legs, and tail (Figure 40). Among the more typical objects from La Madeleine are chipped stone artifacts, including burins and burinated scrapers on blades (Figure 41). Objects from other Paleolithic sites in? clude an antler from Cro-Magnon (Figure 42), a worked antler 45 46 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Paleolithic Collections in the Smithsonian Institution. Source Date Accession Country Locale Description Lartet 1869 1529 France Ariege 5 objects: 1 bone, 1 worked bone, 1 antler, 1 tooth, 1 en? graved antler cast Aurignac 19 objects: 6 chipped stones, 2 bones, 6 jaws, 5 teeth Bruniquel 45 objects: 41 chipped stones, 2 handles, 2 figurine casts Clichy 6 chipped stones Cro-Magnon 32 objects: 21 chipped stones, 2 bones, 1 antler, 8 shells Dordogne 32 objects: 2 chipped stones, 19 bones, 11 worked bones (11 worked bone casts) Gorge d'Enfer 41 objects: 35 chipped stones, 6 bones Grottes de Fin Alliez 2 bones La Madeleine Laugerie Laugerie Basse Les Batignoles Le Moustier Les Eyzies Levallois Lourdes Massat Montastruc Neuilly Tilly Unknown Italy Elba Island Pisa England Hoxne 1874 3546 France Loire Valley Solutre Somme Valley Blackmore 1870 1846 England Thetford 1872 2371 England Reculvert Shrub Hill Thetford Virandon Wyman 1872 2587 Italy France Rome Pont Le Roy St. Acheul Garrow 1875 4044 France Solutre Feuardent 1879 7825 France Abbeville Loire Basin Montieres St. Acheul 133 objects: 84 chipped stones, 3 mortars, 1 antler, 17 bones, 2 jaws, 1 hoof, 25 worked bones (3 worked bone, 1 harpoon, 1 mortar casts) 3 objects: 2 bones, 1 jaw 36 objects: 34 chipped stones, 1 breccia piece, 1 engraved antler cast 4 chipped stones 38 objects: 33 chipped stones, 4 teeth, 1 worked antler 6 objects: 2 chipped stones, 1 jaw, 1 tooth, 1 breccia piece, 1 engraved bone cast 3 chipped stones 1 tooth 2 objects: 1 antler, 1 bone figurine (cast) 4 chipped stones 10 objects: 5 chipped stones, 5 hammerstones 16 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 1 bone 2 chipped stones (1 cast) 2 quartz 603 objects: 201 chipped stones, 389 bones, 1 hammerstone, 4 hearthstones, 2 antlers, 3 teeth, 2 breccia pieces, 1 concre? tion 2 chipped stones 23 chipped stones (3 casts) 1 chipped stone cast 1 chipped stone cast 41 chipped stones (2 casts) 2 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 22 objects: 20 chipped stones, 2 hammerstones 3 chipped stones 15 objects: 8 bones, 6 chipped stones, 1 tooth 14 chipped stones 26 chipped stones 7 chipped stones 21 chipped stones NUMBER 48 47 TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Date Accession Country Locale Description Dawkins 1881 10115 England Church Hole 114 objects: 18 chipped stones, 2 pebbles, 46 bones, 33 teeth, 15 antlers (casts of 3 chipped stones, 8 teeth) Derbyshire 1 bone Mother Grundy's Parlour 14 objects 1 bone, 1 jaw (cast) 12 teeth (casts) Robin Hood 208 objects: 1 antler, 163 bones, 2 jaws, 30 teeth, 4 coproli- tes, 8 chipped stones Windy Knoll 94 objects: 88 bones, 5 teeth, 1 antler Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique 1881 10470 Belgium Blaireaux jaw (maxilla cast) Chaleux 21 objects: 10 chipped stones, 11 bones (casts) Frontal 3 bones (casts) Goyet 18 objects: 5 chipped stones, 11 bones, 2 worked bones (har? poon) (casts) Hastiere 2 objects: 1 bone, 1 jaw (casts) Magrite 11 objects: 5 chipped stones, 4 bones, 1 figurine, 1 antler (casts) Trou de Nuton 26 objects: 24 bones, 1 skull, 1 jaw (casts) Trou Rosette 3 bones (casts) Sureau 5 objects: 4 chipped stones, 1 bone (casts) Museum of Le Havre 1881 10666 France Moulin Quignon 1 chipped stone Pengelly 1883 13075 England Kent's Cavern 1264 objects: 632 bones, 632 teeth White 1883 26918 India Madras 3 chipped stones Wilson 1883-1904 42207 Belgium Chaleux 1 chipped stone England Ightham 3 chipped stones Kent's Cavern 1 stalagmite Thetford 3 chipped stones France Abbeville 48 chipped stones Amiens 2 chipped stones Badegoule 152 objects: 128 chipped stones, 8 bones, 16 breccia pieces Balutie Belcaire Bois du Rocher Bruniquel Butte du Abaret Castel Merle Chelles Chez Pourret Chiffand Combe Grenelle Combe Negre Coussay Les Bois Cro-Magnon Dinnimont Dordogne Fine! Fixmount 3 chipped stones 9 chipped stones 15 chipped stones (1 cast) 19 chipped stones, 2 worked bone casts 1 chipped stone 13 chipped stones 33 objects: 28 chipped stones, 2 teeth, 3 pebbles 119 chipped stones 2 chipped stones chipped stone 67 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 97 objects: 92 chipped stones, 1 tooth, 2 figurine casts, 2 worked bone casts 1 bone 1 chipped stone 48 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Date Accession Country Wilson 1883-1904 42207 France Locale Fonds Mause Foulanges Fontmaure Gourdan Grotte de Bize Grotte de L'Herm Herault Joinville / Conneville La Balutie La Costette La Madeleine La Micoque La Motte Piquet La Vignolle Laugerie Laugerie Basse Laugerie Haute Laugerie Haute/Basse Le Moustier Le Moustier, Plateau Le Pey Leigne Les Bois Les Eyzies Les Roches Luisseau Lunneville Cavern Marinaux Menton Montignac Naveliere Petit Puy Rousseau Plaine de Losse, Thorac Plateau du Milhol Poitou Reilhac Ribezsol Rochebestier Rossignol Description 16 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 4 chipped stones 113 objects: 58 chipped stones, 37 bones, 5 breccia pieces, 9 teeth, 4 hammerstones 160 objects: 86 chipped stones, 41 bones, 3 breccia pieces, 1 stalactite, 23 teeth, 5 worked bones, 1 granite piece 5 objects: 4 bones, 1 skeleton 1 tooth 4 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 129 objects: 105 chipped stones, 6 bones, 7 antlers, 11 worked bones (5 antler and 11 worked bone casts) 25 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 4 chipped stones 3 objects: 2 bones, 1 tooth 52 objects: 24 chipped stones, 2 bones, 1 figurine, 2 antlers, 18 worked bones, 5 worked bone casts 15 objects: 13 chipped stones, 1 breccia piece, 1 worked bone 458 objects: 359 chipped stones, 71 bones, 4 teeth, 4 antlers, 6 worked antler, 5 fossil, 9 worked bone casts 33 chipped stones 7 chipped stones 19 objects: 17 chipped stones, 2 teeth 1 chipped stone 36 objects: 33 chipped stones, 1 bone, 2 breccia pieces 10 objects: 9 chipped stones, 1 ochre 4 chipped stones 9 objects: 4 fossils, 5 teeth 8 chipped stones 496 objects: 388 chipped stones, 6 antlers, 9 breccia pieces, 16 fossils, 7 ochre, 20 teeth, 2 tusks, 31 bones, 12 shells, 1 hammerstone, 4 polishers 3 chipped stones 9 chipped stones 2 teeth 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 141 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 27 objects: 2 chipped stones, 2 bones, 15 worked bones, 5 fossils, 2 teeth, 1 worked antler NUMBER 48 49 TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Wilson Musee des Antiquites Nationales, St. Germain- en-Laye Rau Lovert Date 1883-1904 1887 1887 1888 Accession 42207 18891 19931 20116 Country France Italy Switzerland France Switzerland England France England Locale Saintes Salmon Saltpetriere Seine-et-Mame Seine-et-Oise Solutre Solutre and La Madeleine Somme Valley St. Acheul Tarn-et-Garonne Thennes Unknown Vezere, Caverns de Fate Finale Perugia Pisa, cave near Vibrata Valley Thayngen Dordogne La Madeleine Laugerie Basse Laugerie Haute Paris Thayngen Icklingham Thetford Bruniquel La Madeleine Les Eyzies Mas d'Azil Poitou St. Acheul Unknown Bedford Broome Chard Clacton Grime's Graves Hackney Kempston Stamford Hill Suffolk Warren Hill Description 10 chipped stones 8 chipped stones 28 objects: 20 chipped stones, 8 worked bones 1 "drift" deposit 1 hammerstone 25 objects: 1 chipped stone, 24 worked bones 3 objects: 1 chipped stone, 2 worked bones 23 chipped stones 14 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 21 objects: 1 antler, 14 chipped stones, 6 worked bones (awls) 20 chipped stones 1 bone 6 chipped stones 8 coprolites 1 chipped stone 57 objects: 33 chipped stones, 24 bones 12 objects: 1 figurine, 10 engraved bones, 1 worked bone (cast) 13 objects: 4 antlers, 5 bones, 4 worked bones (3 worked bone casts) 2 worked bones (shaft straightners) (casts) 1 worked bone (shaft straightener) (cast) 4 objects: 1 bone, 3 worked bones (harpoons, point) (casts) 1 antler (cast) 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 13 objects: 9 worked bones, 4 antler 14 objects: 1 chipped stone, 13 worked bones 1 breccia piece 6 worked bones 3 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 2 bones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 3 chipped stones 4 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 3 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 50 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Lovett Ransom American Museum of Natural History Reynolds Cresson Balfour Museo Zoologico dei Vertebrati, Florence Powell Date 1888 1888 1890 1890 1892 1893 1888 1888 1888 1890 1891 1891 1892 1893 Accession 20116 20225 23040 23170 25615 27077 20668 21293 21386 23766 24708 24918 25949 27665 Country India England England England England England England France France France France France Italy Italy England France Locale Poondi Grime's Graves Bedford Broome Ightham Warren Hill Northfleet Bedford Cheswick Chevit Farm Grime's Graves Hanwell Igtham Kingsfield Stamford Hill Thames Valley Unknown Warren Hill Kent Hitchin St. Acheul Bois du Rocher Bray Bruniquel Jaulne La Guizoniere La Madeleine Laugerie Haute Le Moustier Lilly Montguillain Paris Pont Le Roy Pouline St. Acheul Le Moustier Les Eyzies Unknown Les Eyzies Levanzo Island Cave Breonio Cave Oxfordshire Warren Hill Bois du Rocher Etcheroz Description 2 chipped stones 5 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 3 chipped stones 7 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 5 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 8 chipped stones 1 chipped stone (cast) 2 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 25 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 7 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 33 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 13 chipped stones 5 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 breccia piece 8 bones 8 bones and teeth 1 chipped stone 7 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 6 objects: 5 bones, 1 tooth NUMBER 48 51 TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Powell Camp Quick Harrison Hough Seton-Karr Miguel McGuire Date 1893 1895 1895 1895 1896 1897 1903 1907 1900 1905 1906 1900 Accession 27665 28914 29853 30109 31440 32485 40597 47957 36097 43727 44831 46030 37330 Country France Africa England England France Somalia India India France Algeria France Algeria France France France Locale Grotte de Cabrieres Grotte de L'Herm Grotte de Minerve Grotte de Passaron Lananve Placard St. Cemois Unknown Icklingham Salisbury Gravesend Thames Valley Unknown Menton Marodijeh Somaliland Poondi Penner River Grotte de Bize La Madeleine Aumale Bousanow Grotte de Bize Grotte de Cabrieres Solutre Thohyb Verout Ville sur Jarnioux Aumale Cahiere Grotte de Bize Angouleme Bergerac Bolbec Etcheroz Grotte de Bize Grotte de Cabrieres Grotte de L'Herm, Grotte de Minerve Grotte de Passaron Lananve Placard St Cernois Clichy Cdtes-du-Nord Levallois Description 1 antler 3 bones 2 teeth 2 teeth 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 20 chipped stones 16 chipped stones 20 chipped stones 56 chipped stones 15 chipped stones 83 chipped stones 5 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 bone point 4 objects: 1 chipped stone, 3 teeth 2 objects: 1 bone point, 1 shell 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 shell 9 objects: 1 antler, 6 chipped stones, 2 bones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 6 objects: 5 bones, 1 tooth 20 objects: 12 bones, 4 chipped stones, 4 points 1 antler 3 bones 2 teeth 2 teeth 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 9 worked bones 1 chipped stone 52 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Steierli Else Albany Museum Nightingale Martin Stonestreet Musee d'Histoire Na? turelle, Elbeuf Clark Gorjanovic-Kramberger Tal ken Rehlen Stadtisches Museum Rutot (Panama-California Ex? position) Marett Naturhistoriska Riks- museum, Stockholm Buckingham The Royal Ontario Mu? seum of Archaeology Date 1901 1901 1904 1906 1908 1907 1913 1924 1909 1909 1909 1914 1912 1913 1913 1913 1913 1914 1915 1914 1914 1915 1918 Accession 38268 38778 43544 46550 49416 47416 55671 71635 49689 49696 50268 50010 57311 54826 54988 55321 55436 55867 56614 58532 56924 57262 59162 62402 Country Switzerland France England South Africa England England France France France South Africa France France Palestine Palestine Austria South Africa Egypt Germany Belgium Belgium France France England Italy France Egypt Locale Kesslerloch Cavern Dordogne Kent's Cavern Bezuidenhout Valley East London Griqualand West Swaffham Beachamwell La Quina La Quina La Quina Christiana Petit-Essarts Radepont St. Julien de la Liegne St. Ouen de Tilleul Critot Petit-Essarts Radepont Rephaim Samaria Krapina Windsorton Deir Bahau Taubach Brussels Spiennes Binche and Haine Valley, St. Pierre Spiennes St. Pierre St. Symphorien St. Acheul Templeux Le-Guerard Jersey Caves Caraminco Unknown Unknown Thebaid Description 361 objects: 118 chipped stones, 222 bones, 16 teeth, 5 brec? cia pieces 4 worked bones 139 objects: 53 chipped stones, 29 bones, 54 teeth, 3 stalag? mite 5 chipped stones 7 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 4 chipped stones 8 chipped stones 41 chipped stones 59 objects: 1 antler, 2 bones, 1 breccia piece, 53 chipped stones, 2 teeth 8 objects: 5 chipped stones, 3 bones 1 chipped stone 111 objects: 100 chipped stones, 1 hammerstone, 2 pebbles, 8 implements 24 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 7 chipped stones 26 chipped stones 11 chipped stones 37 chipped stones 15 chipped stones 9 objects: 8 chipped stones, 1 figurine (casts) 8 chipped stones 4 chipped stones 33 objects: 3 bones, 6 breccia pieces, 11 teeth, 13 chipped stones (8 chipped stone casts) 22 chipped stones (casts) 49 objects: 47 chipped stones, 2 hammerstones (4 chipped stone casts) 3 chipped stones 31 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 31 chipped stones 14 chipped stones 10 chipped stones 113 objects: 95 chipped stones, 18 pebbles 33 chipped stones 29 chipped stones 28 chipped stones 10 chipped stones NUMBER 48 53 TABLE 4.?Continued. Source The Royal Ontario Mu? seum of Archaeology Marriott American Presbyterian Congo Mission Moir Hrdlicka Archaeological Society of Washington and American School for Prehistoric Research Date 1918 1919 1923 1924 1924 1926 1925 1926 1927 Accession 62402 63670 70046 71310 71514 89903 84988 90005 95150 Country England France France Zaire England Belgium Egypt France Germany Rhodesia France France France Locale Maidenhead Badegoule Le Moustier Le Moustier, Talus Les Roches Placard Dordogne Izere River Valley Luebo Cromer Foxhall Ipswich Goyet Magrite Montaigle Spiennes Sureau Thebes Amiens Bay Bonnet Chaleux Dordogne La Madeleine La Quina La Souquette Laugerie Basse Quay Moutiere Rouen St. Acheul Unknown Vezere Mauer Quarry Unknown Victoria Falls Victoria Falls, vicinity of Victoria Falls, Buxton Quarry Abri des Merveilles Solutre Abri des Merveilles Abri des Merveilles Description 32 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 4 objects: 3 chipped stones, 1 worked bone (needle) 14 bones 35 chipped stones 4 objects: 3 chipped stones, 1 pebble 3 chipped stones 15 chipped stones 14 chipped stones 7 objects: 4 chipped stones, 3 worked-bone casts 3 objects: 1 antler, 2 figurine casts 1 bone 5 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 5 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 bone 2 objects: 1 chipped stone, 1 worked-bone cast 26 chipped stones 1 worked bone (harpoon) 12 bones 1 chipped stone 6 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 11 chipped stones 4 chipped stones 49 objects: 46 chipped stones, 2 pebbles, 1 hammerstone 13 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 1 worked bone (awl) 157 objects: 153 chipped stones, 4 hammerstones 40 chipped stones 4 chipped stones, 1 plaque 946 objects: 88 teeth, 806 chipped stones, 34 hammerstones, 18 bones 51 objects: 46 chipped stones, 2 breccia pieces, 1 limestone, 2 pieces of ochre 765 objects: 745 chipped stones, 20 hammerstones 970 objects: 694 chipped stones, 3 hammerstones, 104 bones, 1 antler, 168 teeth 54 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Archaeological Society of Washington and American School for Prehistoric Research Williams College Reygasse Government Museum, Madras Jones Bodding MacCurdy Bushnell Indian Museum, Cal? cutta South African Museum Date 1928 1929 1929 1930 1930 1932 1932 1934 1934 1935 1925 1925 1926 1926 1926 1926 1927 1929 1926 1928 1928 Accession 98484 103151 107359 95604 115831 121286 126298 132332 133080 85687 88916 88426 89904 90169 92141 99368 108178 93521 88427 101485 Country France France France France Iraq Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine France Algeria India Rhodesia India Palestine France France Belgium England France India Italy India South Africa Locale Abri des Merveilles Abri des Merveilles La Madeleine Abri des Merveilles Abri des Merveilles Ashkot-I-Takik Zarzi Mugharet-el-Wad Kebara Mugharet-el-Wad Mugharet es-Skuhl Mugharet et-Tabun Mugharet et-Tabun Mugharet et-Tabun Laugerie Basse Les Eyzies Tebessa Madras Southern Rhodesia Mohulpahari Sambariyeh Caguy Le Moustier Montieres La Magdalaine Leval Spiennes St. Symphorien Cambridge Dawley Swanscombe Warren Hill Amiens Montieres Poondi Caramanico Chingleput District Cuddapan District Marpha Montagu Cave Description 697 objects: 480 chipped stones, 64 bones, 1 antler, 143 teeth, 9 hammerstones 285 objects: 191 chipped stones, 44 bones, 36 teeth, 14 ham? merstones 11 objects: 10 chipped stones, 1 antler 525 objects: 422 chipped stones, 27 bones, 76 teeth 169 objects: 164 chipped stones, 5 hammerstones 11 chipped stones 22 chipped stones 507 objects: 498 chipped stones, 8 beads, 1 worked bone 206 objects: 160 chipped stones, 21 worked bones, 11 beads, 8 teeth, 1 hammerstone, 2 pieces of ochre, 3 shells 280 chipped stones 175 chipped stones 363 chipped stones 833 chipped stones 1597 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 45 chipped stones 34 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 14 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 7 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 7 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 3 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 chipped stone 5 chipped stones 17 chipped stones 10 chipped stones 20 chipped stones 7 chipped stones NUMBER 48 55 TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Date Accession Country Locale Description Provincial Museum 1929 107637 Czechoslovakia Dolni Vestonice 1 statuette (cast) Moravia 3 objects: 1 carving, 1 skull, 1 chipped stone point (casts) Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund 1930 112339 Austria Willendorf 1 sculpture (cast) 1931 117631 Spain Altamira 15 drawings Castillo (Puente Viesgo) 3 drawings Charco del Agua Amarga 1 drawing Cogul 1 drawing La Vieja drawing Pindal 2 drawings Unknown 3 bones 1932 116916 Algeria Clairfontaine 9 chipped stones England 17750 France Palestine Spain France Tebessa, Bir-Roubat, El- Monkhaad 6 chipped stones Tebessa, El-Ma-El-Aboid 6 chipped stones Tebessa, Escargotiere 10 chipped stones Tebessa, Fidh-El-Begue 1 chipped stone Ipswich 2 chipped stones Warren Hill 5 chipped stones Abbeville 3 chipped stones Chaffaud 9 chipped stones Chambe 83 chipped stones Combe-Chapelle 1 chipped stone Fanzan 4 bones Fontaine 1 chipped stone Grand Pressigny 1 chipped stone La Quina La Souquette Le Moustier, vicinity of Laugerie Haute Limeuil Malpac, Abri Merveilles Meyral Nielon Pech de la Boissiere Poitons Puits St. Acheul Sambariyeh Bartolos Quarry Marsoulas Roquecourbere 42 chipped stones 5 chipped stones 23 chipped stones 19 objects: 11 chipped stones, 8 worked bones (8 worked bone casts) 4 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones (casts) 1 chipped stone 3 chipped stones 26 objects: 25 chipped stones, 1 ochre 1 chipped stone 1 worked bone 4 chipped stones 12 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 134 objects: 63 chipped stones, 49 bones, 10 worked bones, 2 ochre pieces, 1 shell, 7 limestone pieces, 2 travertine 58 chipped stones 56 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund (Photographic Labora? tory) Sanz Begouen Abbott Leach McGregor Museum Swan Swan Date 1932 1933 1931 1931 1933 1934 1935 1936 1938 1935 1935 1936 1938 1938 Accession 117750 118935 121411 124072 114125 117494 124660 128495 134685 140811 150229 134860 134861 141245 150659 150659 Country France France France Indonesia England France Germany Palestine Spain France South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa England England South Africa South Africa South Africa Locale Tarte Marsoulas Roquecourbere Tarte Montespan Niaux Trois Freres Tuc d'Audoubert Trinil Piltdown La Chapelle-aux-Saints La Madeleine La Quina Laugerie Haute Le Moustier Mauer Quarry Mugharet el-Zuttiyeh Villaverde Bajo Bedeilhac Cabrerets Tuc d'Audoubert Tanbryn Farm Alexandersfontein Capetown Alexandersfontein Cape Hanglip Capetown Witsands North Downs Swanscombe Swanscombe Griqualand West Kimberley Klippies Pan Vaal River Kimberley Sliuls Modder River Paardeberg Smidts Drift Road Windsorton Description 200 objects: 158 chipped stones, 1 hammerstone, 1 lbones, 2 worked bones, 1 ochre, 1 breccia piece, 1 palette, 22 objects, 3 polishers 1 photograph 5 chipped stones 9 chipped stones 1 photograph 2 photographs 15 photographs 9 photographs 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 1 photograph 158 chipped stones 2 engravings (casts) 2 footprints (casts) 7 objects: 4 footprints, 3 fingerprints (casts) 4 chipped stones 19 chipped stones 10 chipped stones 23 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 17 chipped stones 38 objects: 37 chipped stones, 1 hammerstone 2 chipped stones 15 chipped stones 16 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 12 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 6 chipped stones 10 chipped stones 6 chipped stones 5 chipped stones 4 chipped stones NUMBER 48 57 TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Franssen Reeves Bruce Hughes Fund Wymer Vass Bordes Paige Solecki Iraq Museum Government Museum, Madras Jones Uganda Museum Hole Citron Shiner Museum National d'His- toire Naturelle, Paris Gibson Barbour Lightner Klima IVPP Sims Eichenberger Old Date 1941 1945 1952 1953 1953 1956 1957 1957 1958 1959 1963 1965 1966 1966 1968 1971 1973 1973 1975 1976 1976 1986 1986 1990 Accession 159728 170049 177782 197463 197993 213032 214613 217009 220078 202973 249458 259009 265162 268093 278180 295641 307731 305126 316299 322222 323176 351570 358176 387104 Country Indonesia England Jordan England Zaire France Belgium Lebanon Iraq India Libya Uganda Iran Ethiopia Sudan France Angola China Libya Czechoslovakia China Kenya Egypt France South Africa Jordan Locale Patjitan Unknown Khirbet Kharaneh Qurun Hattin Boyn Hill Gray's Thurrock Warren Hill Lulua River Combe Grenelle Dordogne La Ferrassie Pech de L'Aze Tongres Ras Beirut Shanidar Cave Chingleput District Temenhent Magosi Nsongezi Gar Arjeneh Kunji Cave Melka Kontoure Sabata Khashm El Girba Lespugue Munhino Choukoutien Sebha Dolni Vestonice Dingcun Olorgesailie Sand Sea Region Brassempouy La Madeleine Le Moustier Pont A rey Somme Valley Bott's Farm Ain el-Assad Fjaje Jafr Description 14 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 59 objects: 57 chipped stones, 2 hammerstones 4 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 2 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 26 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 35 objects: 33 chipped stones, 1 stick, 1 hammerstone (ex? perimental) 1 chipped stone 6 chipped stones 21 chipped stones 33 chipped stones 1429 objects: 8 worked bones, 1 bead, 1282 chipped stones, 64 soil samples, 2 ochre pieces, 2 pebbles, 8 rocks, 62 shells 2 chipped stones 4 chipped stones 1481 chipped stones 467 chipped stones 221 chipped stones 23 chipped stones 4 chipped stones 94 chipped stones 1 chipped stone 1 figurine (cast) 115 chipped stones 1 breccia piece 17 chipped stones 10 objects: 6 figurines, 1 tusk, 3 ornaments (casts) 5 chipped stones 2 chipped stones 1 chipped stone (cast) 1 figurine (cast) 2 chipped stones (cast) 1 chipped stone (cast) 1 chipped stone (cast) 2 chipped stones (cast) 1 chipped stone (cast) 11 chipped stones 35 chipped stones 14 chipped stones 58 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 4.?Continued. Source Old Human Origins Program Date 1990 1980s- present Accession 387104 Country Jordan Kenya Zaire Botswana Ethiopia India China Locale Jebel Uweinid Qasr Kharaneh Wadi Qilat Olorgesailie Kanjera Kasaka Katanda 2 (ESA) Katanda 2 (Sangoan, Late Acheulian) Katanda 2 (MSA) Katanda 9 (MSA) Katanda 16 (MSA) Ishango 11, 14 (LSA) IKangwa, /ai/ai Valleys (LSA) *Gi (MSA, LSA) Toromoja, Gooi Pan (LSA) Aduma 1 ,2 ,4 ,5 ,8 ,8a Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley Malaprabha Valley Bose Basin Description 4 chipped stones 38 chipped stones 24 chipped stones 30 chipped stones; sediment and rock samples none 100 chipped stones 1400 objects: 1,000 chipped stones, 400 bones 100 chipped stones 3775 objects: 3700 chipped stones, 75 bones > 15,379 objects: >8000 chipped stones, 7369 bones, 10 bone tools 11,851 objects: 1500 chipped stones, 10,350 bones, 1 bone tool 15,250 objects: 10,000 chipped stones, 5000 bones, 150 bone tools, 50 human skeletal fragments 600 objects: 100 chipped stones, 500 bones 1,000 chipped stones and bones 200 chipped stones none 8 chipped stones, experimental pieces 7 chipped stones, experimental pieces 15 chipped stones, sediment samples from Le Moustier (gnawed?) (Figure 43), and a worked bone fragment (Figure 44) and a stag antler with a polished end from Massat (Figure 45). In the same letter, Lartet cautioned Henry to be careful about obtaining objects, as fraudulent artifacts were being produced for commercial purpose: You tell me, Sir, that your museum is destitute of specimens from...the reposi? tories of France which have become celebrated from the discoveries made therein. As many objects from these different localities have long been articles of commerce, I suppose it will be easy for your correspondents to procure them for you, only they should take care not to be imposed on by the counterfeiting which has been exercised on a grand scale, whether in France or elsewhere; to furnish you an example, I have placed in the box an authentic hatchet taken by myself from St. Acheul, and another repeated false, proceeding from the cele? brated repository of Moulin Quignon near Abbeville, according to the note which accompanied it when sent to me. Lartet suspected that one of the handaxes was fraudulent. His concern was justifiable considering "L'Affaire Moulin Qui? gnon," when in 1863, Boucher de Perthes, the famous discov? erer of handaxes at Abbeville, France, in the 1850s, announced the discovery of a human jaw in supposed association with Acheulian handaxes in a gravel pit at Moulin Quignon in the Somme Valley. The jaw eventually was proven to be modern, and some stone tools from Moulin Quignon were confirmed to be counterfeits produced by Boucher de Perthes workmen, who had been financially rewarded for "discovering" the artifacts (Grayson, 1983; Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). On 3 May 1869, Henry replied to Lartet, acknowledging the value of the collection to the National Museum: You have placed us under obligation which we shall not readily forget, by the present of the beautiful series illustrating the prehistoric period of France, both of original specimens and of casts, which has recently come to us in good con? dition, and I beg you to receive, herewith, the hearty acknowledgments of the Smithsonian Institution for your liberality. Will you, also, convey to Mr. Rebourg our acknowledgments for the specimens presented by him. Although a substantial collection had already been sent, Lartet sent more material, as noted in his letter to Henry on 13 June 1869: I caused to be packed up, for immediate transmission to you, quite a fine block which we have placed in reserve, and which contains, besides teeth, the bones of diverse animals and wrought horns of the reindeer, a considerable number of pieces of cut silex which are embedded therein. In the same box, I have placed other packages of cut silex, and also a stone for crushing or grind? ing very similar to a specimen of the same nature which came from the Upper Missouri and which 1 succeeded in procuring at the Universal Exposition of NUMBER 48 59 TABLE 5.?Preliminary faunal identifications (counts are tabulated from Table 4). Locality Abri des Merveilles Aurignac Blaireaux Breonio Cave Chaleux Chelles Church Hole Derbyshire Frontal Goyet Grotte de Cabrieres Grotte de L'Herm Grotte de Minerve Grotte de Passaron Grottes de Fin Alliez Hastiere Kent's Cavern La Madeleine La Quina Laugerie Le Moustier Les Eyzies Menton Mother Grundy's Parlour Petit Puy Rousseau Robin Hood Rossignol Solutre Taubach Trou de Nuton Trou Rosette Windy Knoll Accession 84988,95150 1529 10470 25949 10470 42207 10115 10115 10470 10470 46030 46030 46030 46030 1529 10470 13075,38778 1529,42207, 103151 55671,71514, 71635 1529,42207 1529 1529,42207 42207 10115 42207 10115 42207 3546,4044 55436 10470 10470 10115 Faunal count 379 (122 bones, 1 antler, 256 teeth) 13 (2 bones, 6 jaws, 5 teeth) 1 (jaw cast) (maxilla) 8 (bones, teeth) 11 (bone casts) 2 (teeth) 94 (46 bones, 33 teeth, 15 antlers) (8 tooth casts) 1 (bone) 3 (bone casts) 13(11 bones, 2 worked bone casts) (2 cave bear skulls) 1 (antler) 3 (bones) 2 (teeth) 2 (teeth) 2 (bones) 2 (1 jaw cast, 1 bone cast) 1347(661 bones, 686 teeth) 71 ( 23 bones, 2 jaws, 9 antlers, 1 hoof, 36 worked bones), (14 worked bones, 5 antlers) 20 (1 antler, 17 bones, 2 teeth) 129 (77 bones, 1 jaw, 7 worked antlers, 6 antlers, 18 worked bones, 15 worked bone casts, 5 teeth) 5 (4 teeth, 1 worked antler) 4 (1 jaw, 1 tooth, 1 bone, 1 engraved bone cast) 59 (31 bones, 20 teeth, 6 antlers, 2 tusks) 14 (1 bone, 1 jaw cast, 12 tooth casts) 2 (teeth) 196 (163 bones, 2 jaws, 30 teeth, 1 antler) 20 (2 bones, 15 worked bones, 2 teeth, 1 worked antler) 403 (397 bones, 4 teeth, 2 antlers) 14 (3 bones, 11 teeth) 26 (25 bone, 1 skull casts) 3 (bone casts) 94 (88 bones, 5 teeth, 1 antler) Identifications*+ Bison, Equid, Reindeer, Deer Cervids, Rhinoceros, Bear Cervus sp. Ursus sp. Ursus sp. Equid Rangifer tarandus, Ursus sp., Coelondonta antiquitatis, Mam- muthus primagenius, Crocuta crocuta, Vulpes vulpes Rangifer tarandus metapodial Capra ibex Ursus cf. spelaeus Reindeer Bear Bear Equids Equids Ursus spelaeus skull cast; Ursus sp., bear femur Crocuta crocuta, Coelodonta antiquitatis, Equus sp., Rangifer tarandus, Ursus cf. spelaeus, Mammuthus primigenius, Bi? son sp., Megaloceros giganteus, Felis leo Bison, Reindeer, Cervid Cervid Reindeer Reindeer Bison Reindeer, smaller Cervids, Equid, Caprids Coelodonta antiquitatis teeth, Hippopotamus sp. mandibular tooth row cast Reindeer Coelodontia antiquitatis, Crocuta crocuta, Equus sp., Rangifer tarandus, Vulpes vulpes Carnivore, Cattle, Pig Equid, Reindeer, Bear Reindeer, Bear, Equid, Bison Ursus sp., Capra ibex, Gulo luscus, Canis lupus, Rupricapra Cervus sp. Rangifer tarandus. Rhinoceros antiquitatis, Ursus sp., Bison sp. * Identified by Melinda Zeder. Note that species identifications are not comprehensive, and additional species may be present. + Bison (bison); Cervus (deer); Canis lupus (wolf); Capra (ibex); Coelondonta antiquitatis (wooly rhinoceros); Crocuta crocuta (hyena); Equus (horse); Felis leo (?); Gulo luscus (wolverine); Hippopotamus (hippopota? mus); Hyena (hyena); Mammuthus primagenius (mammoth); Megaloceros giganteus (?); Rangifer tarandus (reindeer); Rhinoceros antiquitatis (rhinoceros); Rupricarpa (rupricarpa); Sus (pig); Ursus (bear); Vulpes vulpes (fox). 60 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 2cm FIGURE 36.?Sagaies [catalog numbers from left to right, 8158, 8163, 8961, 8167, 8165, 8164, 8166, 8168] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] 1867. In Europe, we have not yet found the stones of the Paleolithic era except in the reindeer stations of Dordogne. If it would suit you to receive a block of breccia from Eyzies larger than that which I now send, please intimate to me your wishes; it will be profitable for me, when I go to the south, in the coming August, to give my personal attention to its transmission to you from Bordeaux. Lartet's mention of the "stone for crushing or grinding" is likely the mortars from La Madeleine (Figure 46), which have been described and analyzed for organic residues (Petraglia and Potts, 1992; Vandiver et al., 1994). Concerning materials for exchange, Henry asked how he could repay Lartet's generosity. On 3 May 1869, Henry offered publications or biological material: You will do us a favor by informing us in what way we can repay the obliga? tion under which you have laid us. Such of our publications as you may re? quire in your studies are at your command, as far as copies may now be on hand, and a list of them you will find accompanying this letter in a separate package. Should you so desire specimens of the extinct mammalia... [they] can, alas, be furnished. Any suggestion you may make as to a return will be carefully noted. Lartet also indicated in his letter (13 June 1869) that he would enjoy receiving these materials and noted that a long- term exchange would be fruitful: It remains for me to thank you. Sir, for the kind offer which you make me of some of the publications of the Smithsonian Institution, of which I have not re? ceived the list which you announced to me by your last letter. You see. Sir, that it is not desiderata which will be found wanting on my part. On your own part, be pleased to make known wherein it will be profitable for me to be of service, and you will always find me disposed to be so. What I send you at this time comes solely from my personal collections. But as I have just been called, as successor to M. D'Archaic, to the chair of Paleontology at the Museum of Nat? ural History, it is profitable that, in a longer or shorter time, my laboratory will acquire resources sufficient to place us on a footing of exchange with the differ? ent scientific societies which may be willing to enter into such relations with us. On 15 July 1869, Henry responded to Lartet, acknowledging receipt of the valuable artifact collection: We are in due receipt of your letter of June 13, and hasten, in reply, to say that we are very thankful for the continued kindness evidenced by you in the addi? tional contributions of articles of prehistoric date. The osseous and archaeolog? ical breccia from Eyzies will be highly prized, as also the remains of the Mast? odon augustidens the Rhinoceros, etc, the oldest species of the European Miocene. The large, massive, slab which you offer of the Eyzies breccia will be very acceptable also. Among our specimens of large size are a number of much interest, such as an annular iron meteorite of 1500 pounds; a mass of native copper of 3000 pounds; one of cinnabar of 500, etc;?with these the Eyzies block would find an appropriate place. It will give us the greatest pleasure to send you specimens of the...fossil[s] of which you speak and of which we pos? sess a considerable number of duplicates. In addition to what we send you to be exchanged we shall take pleasure in sending for lending for any reasonable time specimens of the regular series of fossils such as may be desired by you. We have been favored several times in this way by the "Museum d'Histoire Naturelle," and shall be most happy to re? turn the favor to one of its professors. As we have already mentioned, our special attention is now directed towards the establishment of as complete an archaeological collection in the Smithsonian In? stitution as we can bring together and the proffer of your assistance is very wel? come. We are indebted to you for all we have of prehistoric man in Europe, and you know, therefore, how far we are already supplied; anything additional lend? ing to extend this series, whether originals or casts, will be very welcome. In a final letter regarding the acquisition of Paleolithic mate? rial, Henry wrote to Lartet on 18 November 1869. Henry sought to acquire a more systematic and representative collec? tion of Old World Paleolithic material and Pleistocene fauna NUMBER 48 61 FIGURE 37.?Worked and incised bones, decorated sagaies [catalog numbers for a-e, respectively, 8157, 8162, 8160, 8159, 8959 (cast)] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] and offerred New World collections appropriate for exchange. Henry made his plea to Lartet: Emboldened by the liberality to which you have distributed the treasures of du? plicates of Archaeology, at your disposal, we venture to enquire whether you have not still some specimens that you could present to the museum of the Smithsonian Institution. You are, doubtless, aware of the fact that the Institu? tion has given much attention to the antiquities of North America and has made several publications relative to it in its Contributions to Knowledge. We are still prosecuting the work with renewed effort. Stimulated by the example of yourself and other eminent archaeologists we have now collected what we think the best series of American specimens in this country. Recent researches into the caves, the ancient shell heaps, the mounds and the Indian graves have added largely to the series. We are now preparing for immediate publication a 62 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 38.?Harpoons [catalog numbers for a-d, respectively, 8149, 8962, 8956, 8960] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession [(accession 1529).] descriptive catalogue to be illustrated by wardens of the collections to make the articles more generally known and at a future time to be used in illustrating a systematic treatise on American Antiquities, comparing them with those of the Old-World. Unfortunately for the latter purpose we have at present very little material. Since we possess nothing except a few implements of stone from Denmark. We have nothing whatever of stone or of bone from France or Swit? zerland and if you can put us in the way of obtaining specimens of these you will place us under obligations and greatly aid in the work in question. Should you desire, we can send duplicates from our collections in such amount as can be spared and any other returns in our power will be made in addition to ample acknowledgments. Our agent, Gustav Bousange of Pans will receive and for? ward any thing you may send us. It would give as much pleasure to have any specimens you can spare, illustrating the mammalia of the cave period of France. We are in due receipt of the great work of yourself and Mr. [Henry] Christy, Reliquae Aquitanicae...and value it as one of the most important con? tributions to archaeology of modern times. FIGURE 39.?Drawing of Baton de Commandement [catalog number 8095] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] In the Report of the Secretary for 1869, Henry described the importance of the collection and highlighted certain acquisi? tions {Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, 1871:46?47): The prehistoric caverns and rock shelters of France, under the persevering investigation of Professor E. Lartet, have yielded such a harvest of precious relics, and of ingenious and interesting deductions, as to have conferred on him a world-wide renown. Out of his abundant materials he has with much lib? erality presented to the Institution several cases filled with objects, of which it will suffice to enumerate a few prominent specimens. Of the animals contempo? raneous with man in those obscure times, there are bones of the horse, some of them gnawed by wolves; of the aurochs, rhinoceros, wild goat, chamois, hyena, reindeer, including a very perfect jaw and teeth of the cave-bear. Associated with these are two small bones of the human skeleton, apparently belonging to the phalanges of the hand. Among the implements of war, of domestic use, and articles of ornament, are casts of bone implements, chiefly for making perfora? tions, stone knives, sculptured hom of reindeer, and bone aigrettes, probably for fastening skin or fur dresses; also a mortar for grinding grain or fruits, and casts of arrow-heads, in forms very similar to those of American specimens; and many flakes of flint struck from the core while making knives, arrow-points, or other articles. The European flint is better adapted to this manufacture than any NUMBER 48 63 stone found in America, except obsidian. These flint chips were gathered from fourteen different localities in France, indicating the prevalence of the art of forming cutting implements of stone and the density of the population. Profes? sor Lartet has also contributed several large masses of the breccia which occu? pies the floor of the caves, consisting of bones and teeth of animals, flint flakes, pebbles, and other objects cemented together in a solid pavement. The composi? tion of these masses apparently indicates the great antiquity of man, since they present the stone implements of his construction embedded in the same materi? als with the bones of the rhinoceros and other extinct animals. The most remark? able portion of this collection may, however, be said to consist of the illustra? tions of the art of sculpture as it existed among the prehistoric races. The material employed was the broad portion of the horns of the reindeer or the ivory tusks of the elephant. These carvings exhibit a remarkable appreciation of form and composition, undoubtedly derived from constant observation of the wild animals depicted. They chiefly represent the more remarkable quadrupeds, such as the elephant, reindeer, bear, aurochs, &c. These are all exhibited or in striking attitudes, such as leaping, fighting, or flying from pursuit. As mentioned by Henry, fauna and breccia from Solutre were represented, including horse teeth, a large piece of breccia with a horse maxilla, and another piece of breccia that represents a pavement floor. (Figure 47). In addition, a number of well-pre? served horse medapodials were in the collections, and the pha? lanx shows systematic fracture, probably for marrow extraction. The European collections donated by Lartet were given promi? nent exhibition space in the Smithsonian (Figure 9). The Old World collections were arranged in display cases for the purpose of comparison with North American artifacts. Notice of Lartet's death (on 28 January 1871), was marked by the publication of a translated article in the Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, "The Scientific Labors of Edward Lartet" (Fischer, 1873). FIGURE 40.?Photograph and drawings of a worked antler with horse engrav? ing [catalog number 8156] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] FIGURE 41.-Burins and composite burin-scrapers [catalog number 8190] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] 64 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 42 (left).?Antler [catalog number 80981 from Cro-Mag? non, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] FIGURE 43 (right).?Drawing of worked antler [catalog number 8094] from Le Moustier, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] -? 2cm Blackmore (ace. 1846, 2371) William Blackmore, an English financier, philanthropist, and founder of the Blackmore Ethnological Museum in Salis? bury, England (Smith, 1868), donated objects to the Smithso? nian in two accessions. In 1870, Blackmore donated stone arti? facts from the drift of Thetford, in the Valley of the Little Ouse, England (ace. 1846). In 1872, he donated a second col? lection (ace. 2371) from four localities in England and from one in Italy. In 1864, Blackmore purchased the famous archaeological collections of Squier and Davis, which had been described in their work, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, pub? lished by the Smithsonian in 1848 (Meltzer, 1998:68). Black- more was described as "a gentleman of wealth and intelligence who has founded an ethnological museum at Salisbury" and who was visiting the United States "for the purpose of obtain? ing additions to his collections" {Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, 1869:26-27). Secretary Henry noted the following concerning Blackmore's reputation: "He is an English gentle? man of wealth and influence; a general patron of science, both in his own and in our country; he has established from his pri? vate funds a public museum in Salisbury, England, and has made valuable donations to the Smithsonian Institution" (mem? orandum, 17 April 1872). The new museum was of interest to the Smithsonian, as indicated by the publication, "Notice of the Blackmore Museum, Salisbury, England. Opened September the 5th, 1867" {Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, 1869). As the Smithsonian was just beginning to receive antiquities from the Old World, the exhibition, arrangement, and classifi? cation of objects in the Blackmore Ethnological Museum was certainly of interest. In the initial discussions about potential exchanges with Blackmore, Dr. Charles Rau, a contributor to Smithsonian pub? lications, wrote to Secretary Henry, on 15 December 1868: "At a meeting of the Ethnological Society, held about ten days ago ...Mr. Blackmore was present. Through him, I think, we shall enter into pleasant relations with the prominent archaeologists of England." This initial contact resulted in personal visits and material exchanges, as described in Assistant Secretary Baird's letter to Blackmore on 11 June 1870: Today we have a box from our agent, Mr. Wesley, which he invoices as for? warded by you and which contains a magnificent treasure of books on archae? ology and other... sciences together with a package of flint implements. NUMBER 48 65 FIGURE 44 (left).?Worked bone [catalog number 8097] from Massat, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] FIGURE 45 (right).?Worked stag antler [catalog number 8099] from Massat, Ariege, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] 2cm Profr. [Professor] Henry has just left us for a visit to Europe and one of his prin? cipal anticipations of pleasure, during his three months absence, was in visiting your museum at Salisbury and in renewing that acquaintance which he found so delightful while you were in Washington. I trust he may not before long some method by which we may make a suitable return for your many favors. It will give Profr. Henry the greatest pleasure, if can supply your library or museum with what you consider of interest. Our duplicates are, now, somewhat numerous and no one has a better right to the first choice from among them than yourself. If we could only look forward to a speedy visit from you and have you make the selection for yourself it would be a source of the highest gratification to us. In accordance with what I believe would be Professor Henry's wish, we shall send, in a few days, to the Blackmore Museum, through Mr. Wesley, a full series of the Smithsonian Contributions and Miscellaneous Collections. The exchanges between Blackmore and Smithsonian offi? cials were beneficial to both parties as both received publica? tions and archaeological materials. The Thetford artifacts ac? quired by the Smithsonian are of historical interest as these pieces were from the original collections of two prominent British antiquarians, Sir John Lubbock and John Evans, both of whom participated in the debates about early man in Europe (Figure 48). Information on the nature of the collections was described in Blackmore's letter to Henry on 17 June 1870: FIGURE 46.?"Mortar" [catalog number 8952] from La Madeleine, France. [Lartet accession (accession 1529).] 66 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 47.?Horse skeletal elements from Solutre, France, [(a) Teeth (cata- Solutrean hearthstone" (catalog number 15554); and (e) split phalanges (cata? log number 15559); (b) breccia with horse maxilla (catalog number 15640); log number 15577).] [Lartet accession (accession 3546).] (c) metapodials (catalog number 15557); (d) breccia referred to as "fused NUMBER 48 67 FIGURE 48.?Handaxes [catalog nos. 9744 (left), 9745 (right)] from Thetford, England. An inscription on the handaxe on the left reads, "Sir John Lubbock, Drift, Thetford, Norfolk, Engl.," and the inscription on the other reads, "J. Evans, Drift, Thetford, England." [Blackmore accession (accession 1846).] Since the dispatch of the first box I have sent you another containing volumes which I believe will be acceptable to your Institution. I have also sent you for distribution 20 copies of "Flint Chips" [Stevens, 1870] a descriptive catalogue of some of the principal stone objects in the Blackmore Museum as well as a guide to Prehistoric Archaeology. The stone implements are some specimens lately found in the Valley of the Lit? tle Ouse River and I enclose an account of them by my friend Mr. L.W. Flower who with Sir John Lubbock and Mr. John Evans have presented them to your Institution. You ask me to indicate what I should like you to send me for the Blackmore Museum. I shall be very glad if you will send me all your publica? tions relating to Archaeology and Ethnology. The Blackmore artifacts represented some of the first archae? ological material acquired from Europe, in addition to Lartet's contributions. Baird's desire for publications and artifacts were expressed in his letter to Blackmore on 5 July 1870: As we wrote you a few weeks ago, the several books and specimens you sent came duly to hand, the value of which is duly appreciated. The desired distribu? tion of the "Flint Chips" has been made. Should you have additional copies of this work we should be glad to have as many as you can spare as several gen? tlemen have expressed a desire to possess it. We could use to good advantage as large a number as you have already sent, and there is no doubt of their distri? bution the cause of American Archaeology would be greatly advanced. The Drift-implements were extremely welcome, as we had but a single specimen in the collection and that from France. Prof. Lartet has kindly sent us a good se? ries of Dordogne relics and we are gradually gathering a fair collection of some of the prominent European objects of this kind. As you are informed, we have sent to the Blackmore Museum a complete set of the Smithsonian publications, this being the least in our power for as valuable donations on your part. In response to queries about what the Smithsonian could pro? vide to the Blackmore Museum, Edward Stevens, Honorary Curator of the Blackmore Museum, wrote to Baird on 20 July 1870, requesting artifact "duplicates": It is pleasing to find that our work "Flint Chips" is in demand with those inter? ested in the subject of which it treats. You mentioned in your first letter that you would be happy to place some of your duplicates at our disposal. Should the Council desire to do this, I shall be only too happy to forward a list of desiderata, or, possibly, you would indicate what the duplicates are, & in this way I could avoid robbing you needlessly, whilst you could no doubt render our collections far more generally representa? tive of American Archaeology than it is at present. To of clarify the location in the Little Ouse valley where the objects were discovered, Stevens wrote in a postscript: I believe they all come from the valley of the Little Ouse, & probably from Brandon, Thetford, Shrub Hill, and Santon Doroham. You may see some spe? cial letter upon certain of them, if so & you could give me an outline of the typ? ical form, I think that I could determine locality & give you particulars of the deposits in which they are found, which, I need scarcely add, is all important with drift implements. On 11 October 1870, Baird requested additional copies of publications and inquired again about what could be sent to the Blackmore Museum to fulfill obligations. The provenience of the objects sent by Blackmore apparently had been clarified, as the objects were given locality designations: The copies of the "Flint Chips" sent by Mr. Blackmore have, all, been distrib? uted and we shall, therefore, be much pleased to have the additional ones to which you refer in order to supply a number of establishments where they will be highly prized. If you will send us a memorandum of the particular forms you desire from the American flint implements we will take pleasure in overhauling our duplicates, in your interest, and in sending you such as we can spare. Our stock is increasing rapidly and we can, doubtless, supply you some interesting desiderata. The drift implements sent by Mr. Blackmore with the aid of certain memoranda subsequently furnished, were all susceptible of being assigned their proper positions and they now occupy a conspicuous place among our treasures. After Henry's return from Europe, he wrote to Blackmore, on 7 November 1870, expressing his appreciation for the ex? change: My regret in not seeing you was discovered when I saw the ...[contribution] you had made to the library of the Institution. It has afforded much admiration, and I doubt not will be highly... [prized] by the Board of Regents to whom it will be exhibited at their visiting in Jan. 1871.1 beg to assure you that we shall grandly embrace any opportunity which may offer to sending you any service. Although we cannot hope to equal your liberality yet we shall be able in the course of the year to send you a specimen which may not be considered as un? worthy additions to your unrivaled collection. The final correspondence regarding the exchanges was writ? ten by Henry on 11 June 1872, to Stevens, indicating that eth? nological objects were being sent: It gives us much pleasure to announce...a box containing a number of originals and casts of ethnographical objects selected from the duplicates in the Smithso? nian Institution, and intended as a present to the Blackmore Museum. We are under so many obligations to Mr. Blackmore for services rendered the Institu? tion, from time to time, that we are very happy in being able to make even this slight return. Wyman (ace. 2587) In 1872, Dr. Jeffries Wyman, director of the Peabody Mu? seum, Cambridge, Massachusetts, donated to the U.S. National Museum artifacts from numerous sites in Europe, including ob? jects from two Paleolithic sites in France. Wyman was the first curator of the Peabody Museum and had been a well-known 68 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY and respected professor of comparative anatomy (Hinsley, 1985). Under Wyman's tenure, numerous excavations were made in the New World, most intended to demonstrate parallels with European models of antiquity (Hinsley, 1985). He also purchased European collections for comparative purposes. In exchange for European artifacts from the Peabody's col? lections, the Smithsonian offered objects from North American sites. In regard to the desired exchange, Henry wrote to Wy? man on 24 January 1872, requesting the European materials: lt gives me pleasure to announce that we shall shortly forward to the Peabody Museum a collection of interesting objects in American Archaeology of which we beg your acceptance. These specimens are presented in accordance with the spirit of the Institution to advance, as much as it can, the knowledge of the science of Anthropology, which may be done especially through cooperation with the establishment under your charge. We presume the Directors of the Peabody Collection are actuated by a spirit similar to that which prompts the Institution in the present instance, and that, in due time, they will make the Smithsonian the recipient, for study at the National Capital, of copies of such French, Swiss and other implements as can be spared from the duplicates in your care. In exchange for the North American material, Wyman indi? cated to Henry, in a letter dated 19 December 1872, that ar? chaeological objects from various sites in Europe would be do? nated to the Smithsonian by the trustees of the Peabody Museum. Wyman noted that some of the objects were acquired by the Peabody Museum from the original collections of French prehistorians Gabriel de Mortillet and Edouard Lartet. The final letter on this exchange was sent to Wyman on 28 December 1872, Henry wrote: "We write to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th just, and to request that you will present our thanks to the Peabody Museum for the antiqui? ties you announce as presented to the Institution. These will form a very interesting addition to the Ethnological specimens in our collection. It gives us pleasure to cooperate with the Pea? body Museum in collecting and preserving the remains espe? cially of the people who formerly inhabited this country as well as such foreign specimens as may be necessary to their com? parative study." Garrow (ace. 4044) In 1875, Dr. H.C. Garrow of Washington, D.C, donated a collection from Solutre, France. Garrow may have delivered the material himself, as there is no correspondence on this col? lection. Feuardent (ace. 7825) In 1879, a gift of artifacts from France was donated by Gaston L. Feuardent (Figure 49). The collection may have been deliv? ered in person, as no correspondence was found. In the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for 1879, it was noted (pp. 41-42) that "an extremely interesting collection of prehistoric articles of France and other localities in Europe was presented by Mr. Gaston L. Feuardent, of New FIGURE 49.?Handaxes [catalog numbers 35095 (left), 35094 (right)] from St. Acheul, France. [Feuardent accession (accession 7825).] York. The great archaeological knowledge of this gentleman renders the collection particularly valuable in the authentic indi? cation of the character of the different pieces." Dan kins (ace. 10115) In 1881, W. Boyd Dawkins, chairman of Geology at Owens College, Manchester, England, donated a collection from Cre- swell Crags and Sink, in the limestone caves of Windy Knoll, Derbyshire, England. The accession mainly consisted of faunal remains from a variety of animals. Major publications by Dawkins (1874, 1880) contributed to an early theory regarding the antiquity of human ancestry (Grayson, 1986). As indicated by existing correspondence, Secretary Henry, Assistant Secretary Baird, and Dawkins had met and had agreed to exchange material from their respective museums. On 20 October 1871, Henry wrote to Dawkins concerning his wish to obtain the Derbyshire faunal material they had spoken of, and he indicated the material would be highly prized by the National Museum. Henry sought casts as well as type speci? mens from the site of Kent's Hole. About a year later, Henry wrote to Dawkins on 9 November 1872, noting: "I have just received...your last two contributions to the Palaeontological Society. Though not in my line I shall examine them with inter? est, since they are the result of your labors. And in this connec- NUMBER 48 69 tion I may say that it will give me pleasure if at any time I can aid you in your researches by promising such specimens as may be of importance in carrying out your investigations. You were so good as to say, when I was in your company, that if the Institution would make formal application there for specimens from the Kent-Cavern [, material] would be sent to us. Please inform me to whom such application should be made and whether any special form is requisite." Eight years later, Dawkins visited the United States, in part to investigate possible parallels between the prehistories of Amer? ica and Europe (Meltzer, 1983). Dawkins met with Charles Ab? bott and visited the Trenton gravels in New Jersey to determine if the American Paleolithic was comparable in age and evolu? tionary grade to that of Europe (Dawkins, 1883). During his visit, Dawkins met with Baird. Later, he wrote to Baird from New York, on 4 December 1880, summarizing the agreement reached during their conversation: "You told me last Saturday that I might beg some of your duplicates for the Manchester Museum, Owens College, Manchester, England, and men? tioned some of the recent dredgings and travelings. We shall value greatly anything zoological, (or archaeological) that you can spare. On my return home I will send you a box of remains from our caverns." On 26 February 1881, Dawkins wrote to Baird that he was assembling the collection: "I have packed up, and will send off to you before the end of this month a case containing 1. the remains of Man & Beast from the Hyeana dens of Creswell Crags. 2. The remains of Grissly Bear, Rein? deer and Bison from a 'sink' in the limestone at Windy Knoll, Castleton Derbyshire. 3. The pamphlets and a proof relating to them. All the specimens are ready to go into a museum." In one of the final letters on the exchange, Baird wrote to Dawkins on 24 November 1881, indicating that the collections had arrived. "On returning from a three month's absence I find a box en? dorsed as being sent by you, & which I presume contains the much desired bones etc. from the British caves." Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique (ace. 10470) Casts of fossil mammals and of stone and bone implements found by prehistorian Edouard Dupont in classic cave sites of southern Belgium were accessioned as a gift from the Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique. Dupont (1869, 1872) had excavated the caves and had recovered important fossil collections. In a letter dated 1 September 1880, Baird requested material from Reclard, Secretary of the Belgian museum. Re- clard replied on 24 June of 1881, indicating shipment of ar? chaeological material. Museum of Le Havre (ace. 10666) In 1881, a gift was received from the Museum of Le Havre, France. The collection consisted of a handaxe from Moulin Quignon, near Abbeville, France. The handaxe was cataloged and noted to be "fraudulent." There is no accompanying corre? spondence in this accession (see Lartet accession above, on "L'Affaire Moulin Quignon"). Pengelly (ace. 13075) William Pengelly was a geologist and educator from Lam- orna, Torquay, in southwestern England. Pengelly played a ma? jor role in the excavations of important caves, including Kent's Cavern in Devonshire, England. He also figured prominently in proving the antiquity of man in England (Grayson, 1983). Pen? gelly was associated with the Torquay Museum, which pro? vided donations to the Smithsonian. The first contact between the Smithsonian administration and Pengelly was made on 21 December 1872, when Secretary Henry solicited material: I have the honor to make application on the behalf of the Smithsonian Institu? tion for a set of the remains from Kent's Cavern whenever these are ready for distribution. The National Museum of the United States is in charge of the Smithsonian Institution and already possesses very extensive collections in American Archaeology, Prehistory, Palaeontology and Zoology, embracing, among other series, the results of extensive explorations in the caves, shell- heaps and ancient mounds of America, as well as numbers of American verte- brata both recent and fossil. For this reason we feel assured that a collection of the remains from Kent's Cavern will if presented to the Institution be well placed since here they can be directly compared with American objects of the same general character. In response to Henry's request and suggestions, Pengelly wrote a letter of acknowledgment on 9 January 1873, indicat? ing that he would put the Smithsonian's request for fossil mate? rials before the Kent's Cavern Committee. For 10 years, there was no further correspondence on this issue. On 3 March 1883, however, Pengelly wrote to Baird, indicating that Kent's Cav? ern material was available: "There was some years ago a corre? spondence between the Secretary of your Institution and my? self respecting a present of specimens of the bones found in Kent's Cavern... which it was hoped would be sent to your Mu? seum. Will you kindly inform me as soon as convenient whether it will still be agreeable to your Committee to receive a small present of the kind. The chest with its contents will prob? ably require two men to carry it, and I shall hope to be in? formed how it should be directed, and by what route it should be sent." Assistant Secretary Baird wrote to Pengelly on 17 March 1883, indicating his pleasure in receiving the fossil assemblage for exhibit and scientific purposes: "I have not forgotten the kind promise of the Committee on the Exploration of Kent's Cavern to place a series of the specimens in the National Mu? seum of the U.S., and I hasten to renew the assurance that such a collection will be extremely welcome to us, and that there will be accorded to it ample space for public exhibition in the best manner. We are making a speciality of this class of re? mains for the U.S., and the means of comparison with objects of a similar character from foreign countries will be highly ap? preciated, and doubtless of much advantage to science." The bones from the Kent's Cavern collection correspond with an innovative system of horizontal and vertical plotting 70 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY used by Pengelly (Campbell and Sampson, 1971). Disclosing important information on the contents of the chest of fossils, Pengelly wrote to Baird on 7 April 1883: I have had the pleasure of sending... a chest containing 30 complete 'finds' from Kent's Cavern, as a present to the Smithsonian Institution, from the late Lord Holden, (proprietor of the Cavern) and the British Association, which 1 trust it may be agreeable to the Directors of your Museum to accept. Of the 'finds' now sent; 23 were met with in the 'Cave Earth'=the 'Hyaenine de? posit,' and the remaining 7 in the 'Breccia' = the 'Ursine deposit'=the oldest deposit found in the cavern. Within the box, containing the Earth 'find,' will be found a label similar to that now enclosed which may be thus inter? preted-'Kent's Hole'; 51st 'Series of Workings'; 22nd 'Parallel,' 1st 'Level' (i.e., from 0 to 1 foot below the bottom of the Stalagmitic Floor); 3rd 'Yard' on the right of Datum line, found 31st March, 1874. No. 6397 (the 6397th 'find') in the 'Breccia' (see refr. Brit. Assoc. 1865, page 20). I request you to have the number of the find to which it belongs written on every bone and fragment of bone on which it is not already written, so that its exact place in the Cavern may, if necessary, be determined from my journal. In a postscript, Pengelly noted that he was sending papers on the Devonshire Caverns, for the Smithsonian library. The box of fossil material arrived at the Smithsonian, as indicated by Baird to Pengelly on 1 May 1883. Apparently Baird was satis? fied with the assemblage and also was impressed with the ex? plorations conducted by the Kent's Cavern researchers. He suggested that an article be submitted for publication in the Smithsonian Reports: We shall at once proceed to unpack it carefully and arrange it in a series of spe? cial cases, taking care to preserve all the marks that you have affixed to the sev? eral pieces. We already possess a somewhat similar collection from the bone caves of the U.S. The work of exploration has been done, however, with less care than that which characterizes your researches; and we hope that your col? lection will serve as a model for construction in all future work. There is a large field of research in this direction in the U.S., and it is very important that proper methods be devised for carrying it on. Would it be asking too much from you for a brief article in the general subject of cave exploration; and the method of research, to be published by the Smithsonian Institution as one of its special series of directions for the promotion of scientific investigation. It, of course, will be prepared under your name, and published with any amount of il? lustration you may select. I need hardly say that additional specimens from time to time, to continue and complete the series, will always be acceptable, and receive the most distin? guished consideration in the National Museum. Pengelly was pleased that the material reached Washington, and with Baird's offer to publish an article on cave explora? tions. On 23 May 1883, he replied to Baird: "It is most pleasant to receive such cordial letters as yours of 1st inst., and very sat? isfactory to learn that the box of specimens has duly reached you. I shall be most happy to prepare, in compliance with your gratifying proposal, an article on Cavern Exploration, to appear in one of the Reports of the Smithsonian Institute [sic]." After unpacking the fossil material, Charles Rau, a curator in the Department of Antiquities, realized that identification of species would be difficult. In a letter dated 23 May 1883, Rau wrote to Baird: "The accompanying list gives the original num? bers of Mr. Pengelly's collection from Kent's Cavern. Please, send him this list, to be returned after he has identified the bones, teeth, etc., by comparison with his journal. There have been found in Kent's Cavern some characteristic flint imple? ments, casts of which would be very desirable for a better rep? resentation of our series from that important locality." In accor? dance with Rau's request, Baird wrote to Pengelly on 24 May 1883, stating: "I am happy to say that the collection of Kent's Cavern remains, which you kindly transmitted to the Smithso? nian Institution some months ago, are already unpacked and suitably arranged for exhibition in [the] Archaeological Hall. Dr. Rau, the officer in charge, is much embarrassed by the dif? ficulty of identifying the several bones, and have drawn the en? closed list of numbers corresponding to opposite blanks, which he asks that you will kindly fill up and return to the Smithso? nian Institution." Apparently, Pengelly was not able to satisfy this request, and in a final letter on the Kent's Cavern acces? sion, he replied on 11 June 1883, stating: "I can only say that no attempt was made to identify any of the bones sent to the Smithsonian. The work of identifying the whole was so per? fectly Herculanean, that unless the authorities at each Museum identified the specimens they received there was no prospect that it would ever be done at all" (see Table 4). White (ace. 26918) In 1883, a collection of Acheulian handaxes was donated to the U.S. National Museum by the Geological Survey of India, through CA. White. White was a geologist with the U.S. Geo? logical Survey who corresponded for many years with Secre? taries Henry and Baird about geology and paleontology. The handaxes were found near Madras, India. No correspondence concerning this accession was found. Wilson (ace. 42207) In 1904, the National Museum purchased a large and ex? tremely important collection of Paleolithic artifacts from the estate of Thomas Wilson (see earlier section on Wilson). The collection was previously deposited by Wilson in twelve sepa? rate installments during his tenure as a curator of prehistoric ar? chaeology at the Smithsonian. Wilson began his collecting ac? tivities before his tenure at the Smithsonian. The Wilson deposits contained about 2633 objects, many from classic Pale? olithic sites in France. Among the objects are Solutrean points, scrapers, and burins from Laugerie Haute (Figure 50); worked bone, worked antler, needles, gravers, and scrapers from Laugerie Basse (Figures 51-53); and both unworked bone and splintered, engraved, and worked bone from Rossignol (Figure 54). Wilson also collected natural history specimens thought to be associated with cave dwellers, such as bear coprolites from Italy (Figure 55). In a letter to John Wesley Powell, director of the Smithso? nian's Bureau of American Ethnology, on 22 June 1883, Wil? son expressed interest in acting as a liaison for exchanging ma? terial from the Old and New Worlds: NUMBER 48 71 FIGURE 50.?Stone tools from Laugerie Haute, France, [(a) Solutrean points (catalog nos. from left to right: 1472, 1465, 1472, 1472, 1472); (b) scrapers (catalog number 1462); and (c) burins (catalog number 1465).] [Wil? son accession (accession 42207).] I have been making some few collections or some few articles. A collection is not made without difficulty?the prices are high & there is much competition. Many articles are fraudulent & downright forgeries. Their principal value arises from the certainty as to their place of deposit & this the first owner (or finder) is unwilling & the record unusable to give with certainty & reliability. I was out the other day with the School of Anthropology of Paris to a station or dwelling place of prehistoric man...of the Oise & got many specimens. Some gentlemen here are anxious to get specimens from America, either ethnological 72 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 51 (left).?Artifacts from Laugerie Basse, France, [(a) Worked bone (catalog number 99848); (b), sagaie (catalog number 99848); (c) harpoon (catalog number 99854); and (d) drawings of worked bone (cata? log number 99850).] [Wilson accession (accession 42207).] FIGURE 52 (below).?Needle fragments [catalog num? ber 99855] from Laugerie Basse, France. [Wilson acces? sion (accession 42207).] 2cm : or geological?& if I had some I could make some exchange which would be valuable to me. I could do this by going to the collectors & making my own se? lections. Will it be possible for you to aid me? Any suggestions you may be able to give will be thoughtful received & highly appreciated. When I return to my home on Connecticut Avenue I shall hope for some choice pleasure in com? paring notes & talking of man before the flood. Secretary Baird was interested in making exchange agree? ments with Wilson and found his location in France to be ideal for such an arrangement. On 12 December 1883, Baird wrote: "At your new station you will have an opportunity of continu? ing your archaeological researches, as many discoveries have NUMBER 48 73 FIGURE 53.?Stone tools from Laugerie Basse, France, [(a) End-scrapers (catalog number 1491); (b) burinated scrapers (catalog number 1491); and (c) gravers (catalog number 1489).] [Wilson accession (accession 42207).] been made there about. We will be most happy to enter into close relationships with Mons. [Monsieur] Gailliard, and will send him any of the archaeological publications of the Institu? tion in return for contributions. You have made a magnificent gain in...specimens. I trust that you may enlarge the collections and that ultimately it will come to the National Museum." In response to Wilson's suggestion to deposit his personal collection in the Smithsonian, Baird expressed some interest in his letter of 30 September 1884, "I am much gratified at your proposal to send us your collection. If you will do this, we will 74 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 54.?Drawings of worked bone [catalog number 100290] from Rossignol, France. [Wilson accession (accession 42207).] NUMBER 48 75 FIGURE 55.?Cave bear coprolites [catalog number 99862] from a cave near Pisa, Italy. [Wilson accession (accession 42207).] have it carefully unpacked & mounted, in readiness for such further action as you may wish to take in regard to it on your return." In the same letter, Baird indicated the difficulty in sending New World objects because of a heavy workload, but he maintained his desire to acquire objects from Europe: I had intended to send you a collection of American implements, to be used by you in exchange for other specimens but, in truth, we have been under such drive of work for the last year that it was impossible for our curator of archae? ology to do anything in the matter. As a general thing material comes in as fast as we can catalogue it, leaving no time for the finer elaboration by which we might know what is duplicate & can be spared. If not too late then, I will have a collection picked out & sent to you. I cannot promise to send anything espe? cially rare. What is common with us might, however, be very attractive to a French naturalist. Of course the objects from the caves of the south of France will be very interesting. We are very desirous of getting as complete a series as we can of European prehistory. In a letter dated 18 October 1884, Wilson reiterated his de? sire to obtain New World materials from the Smithsonian for exchange: You may send me anything else pertaining to Prehistoric man in America and it will be of great use. They are now seeking to extend their collections to include representations from other countries, for purposes of comparison and in North American objects they are very poor. So I could utilize them with effect. I do not wish rare or fine or fancy or expensive articles?but only those of every day use among the savages of our country. I saw at Turin a collection sent from Washington consisting [of] stone axes, hammers spear and arrow heads &c.&c. from 'Bennings Bridge,' 'Little Falls,' 'Maryland' &c.&c. amounting to about a thousand pieces. Who sent them 1 don't know, but when I saw this riches and thought with what effect 1 might use it for the benefit of your Institution I con? fess to a feeling of jealousy and annoyance. Wilson indicated that unless objects could be obtained from the Smithsonian for exchange, collection of European material could only come at great personal cost: I am still of the mind to send my collection home next spring & should like to include any exchange I might be able to make up to that time. I suggest that you should send me a box of specimens. I could use them with great benefit for your Institution. In justification of my request for specimens 1 have to say that it when I visit a collection private or public where they may have many duplicates and be told 'no we do not sell, but we will exchange' and in the next place 'Yes we will sell or exchange, we will exchange these for oth? ers of equal value or we will sell these at such and such a price.' Then for want of articles to exchange I have to put my hand in my pocket and pay 20, 40 or 100 francs cash. My collection has cost me not far from 5000 francs & as much more in traveling expenses & yet I have no object which could not have been 76 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY obtained in exchange for articles from the U.S. In the same letter, Wilson indicated his motivation for ob? taining the Paleolithic objects: 1 wish to get a respectable showing of Prehistoric man in western Europe & then present it all to your Museum for the benefit of our people & especially my scientific friends of Washington who have not had the opportunity that I have. As to publishing any memoirs &c. we will see further. I am only trying to give our friends pleasure and am not seeking for private glory. I have plenty of them written out, but have been retaining them for future reference and infor? mation as well as possible correction. I make my memoranda and take my pho? tos as I go along so that I may preserve a vivid recollection as well as necessary data. Baird sent North American specimens to Wilson, as indi? cated in his letter of 23 December 1884: "I have much pleasure in announcing that a box containing 355 specimens of North American implements, as per accompanying invoice, is now packed, and awaiting shipment to you. Hoping that you may be able to make some good use of these articles in the interest of the National Museum." Wilson responded to Baird three months later, on 30 March 1885, enumerating his comments: 1. I received in good order the box of Indian implements and was greatly pleased with the contents. I expect to make a trip through the interior of France and...make some exchanges for 'cavern' objects?thru to Paris & to the Musee St. Germain. Will those objects please you? 2. I have nearly completed the packing & catalogue of my collection for sending to you. I have endeavored to separate the objects in two ways (1) by periods & (2) by places. In this I have not been altogether successful as I have only the odd times which 1 can spare to work at it, and I have it do all myself which makes it laborious & tedious. I hope that you will appreciate my efforts. I hope to enjoy them on my return. 3. I wrote a paper...on Prehistoric art which I sent to my son J. Frank Wilson to be read 1st from the art club & 2nd to be given on to Col. Lively for use before the Anthrop. Soc. I should like you to see it. There is nothing original or strik? ing. I only tried to group the article displays of various prehistoric epochs so our artists could understand them. Baird replied to Wilson on 13 April 1885: "Your letter of March 30th is just at hand. I am glad to know that the box of Indian implements pleased you. I am rather inclined to think that we have already supplied the Stockholm and Copenhagen Museums with specimens of the principal forms of stone im? plements. If, however, there be any special thing that they want, please let us know. We shall be very happy indeed to ob? tain any cave objects from the interior of France." Wilson wrote to Baird on 14 May 1885 concerning the mailing of the archaeological collection to Washington: "I have finished my packing and have mailed up my boxes num? bering 24. ...I certainly look forward with much eagerness to the anticipated pleasure of personal intercourse with the An? thropologists of Washington. I will send... a copy of my cata? logue. The objects as you will see by the catalogue are di? vided by numbers into the various epochs to which they belong, so that they can be easily & satisfactorily classified by age, but not by places where found. That is the coarse pro? cedure at St. Germain. I have endeavored to pack each epoch in its separate box." During this time, Wilson continued his collecting with greater vigor. Wilson also indicated that he had begun to dig at certain localities. On 16 June 1885, Wilson wrote to Baird: I am...at Ussat in L'Ariege, making a tour among the grottes of Southern France. I go to Toulouse tomorrow. Mrs. Wilson is with me & we spend some portion of nearly every day up. or down in to see grottes. We have visited Gour- dan, Marmet, Gargas, Mas d'Azil, L'Aubrive [Lombrive], Bedeilhac, Niaux, l'Eglise [Les Eglises] & yesterday Bouicheta where wefouilles until dark & got many of the bones of the grand ours des cavernes which I have been boxing today to send to you when the occasion arrives. I sent you my catalogue & in? voices of my collection. To this was added a case from Genoa consisting of mostly an entire squelette of a grand ours except the head. I will try my best to get one while I am in this country. An entire squelette, mounted, still cost 1000 or 1200 francs, so they told us today. I hope, & Mrs Wilson said yesterday while we were 1/4 mile under ground, digging away at our grand ours, that she hoped you would appreciate our labor in this behalf. Wilson acquired more archaeological material through dig? gings and exchanges, as indicated in his letter to Baird on 18 July 1885: "I have, we have, now passed two months in voyag? ing through the midi de France & we have gathered a mass of things for your museum which I will have rendezvoused at Havre & sent to you from there. They have been gathered in various places & under all sorts of circumstances, so that it has been impossible to make any catalogue. But we have tried to keep up all indications of the kind & places so that they can be catalogued." Wilson continued: "I have exhausted all the ob? jects you sent me & if you have any more they should be sent at once to me." Baird acknowledged receipt of Wilson's collections on 4 Au? gust 1885: "I...am glad to know that you still continue to make collections in archaeology and natural history. I assure you that we fully appreciate all that you are doing for us. I do not know how the 19+ boxes actually arrived, but I am advised that they are safely stored in the Smithsonian, where they are held for such action as you may wish in the future. Unless you autho? rize it, they will not be opened excepting in your presence. Of course, with the catalogue, which came duly to hand, we could unpack the collection, and have it ready for your inspection when you return; but this is in no sense a pressing matter, and it will be decided by your choice. We shall be very glad to obtain specimens of European archaeology from any country you may visit, and will make such return as we can." Further indicating his zeal to amass collections, Wilson wrote to Baird from Rennes, France, on 12 August 1885, about his activities: "I have just left Mr Gaillard's house where we have been making some interestingybwfV/es.1 am gathering up articles concerning prehistoric man, having them boxed on the spot (which may account for the want of tickets, catalogues, etc.) sent to Havre from whence I will forward thru to you when I have all complete." On 28 August, Baird replied: "I will be pleased to have you collect any additional specimens you can illustrating the archaeology of Europe. Our European col? lections are very small, and we can not have too much of this kind of material." Regarding the boxes Baird spoke of in the earlier correspondence, Wilson replied, on 15 September: "As NUMBER 48 77 to my boxes in Washington! I had intended you should open these & classify the objects but on your suggestion I agree that it would be best I should do it. Some of the boxes are so packed that I could identify the objects better?thus the work would be considerable for you, while it would be a pleasure for me." Wilson intended to return to Washington as described in his letter to Baird on 4 May 1886: "I am going to quit Nice. I have enjoyed myself, had a good time & much pleasure. Am entirely satisfied &c. But I have had enough. To stay longer only means to spend my time in idle, pleasure good enough for invalids, but not for me. I have packed up my collection and only trying to label a lot of fossils." Wilson moved to Washington, D.C, and in 1887 he became the administrator, and then later, cura? tor of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology at the U.S. National Museum. Wilson then began corresponding with D. Peyrony and M. Capitan, two famous French prehistorians, for the purpose of acquiring more Paleolithic collections. On 19 February 1900, Peyrony wrote to Wilson from Les Eyzies, France, concerning the sale of Paleolithic materials: "The collection of which I have spoken with Mr Capitan con? sists of 160 pieces. I have sent a sketch of the most beautiful for you to have an idea of those we have. I have made for you a package of the collection for you to see what there is, if you de? sire. My final price is 300 francs. I have, if you desire, 15 to 20 large pieces, but it is not possible to diminish the price since all the pieces are very rare and of a very high value." Capitan also was in contact with Wilson concerning the sale of Peyrony's collections, as indicated in his letter of Monday 11 June 1900. Regarding a previous sale, Capitan indicated that he received one of Wilson's checks for 150 francs and forwarded it to Pey? rony. Capitan indicated that Peyrony was a "poor and honest schoolmaster," and was in need of money and would happily sell part of his collection. Captian added: "You can have total confidence in him that when he says a piece is beautiful it is al? ways true. It is often more beautiful when you can be abso? lutely sure of the provenience. Peyrony is not dishonest. I as? sure you that the affair is good and that the money will be well placed." Capitan indicated the type of material and the prove? nience of some of Peyrony's material: For Moustier there is a pointed scraper and handaxes and you will find these are varied?For La Micoque (this pretty Acheulean station near Laugerie Haute described by [Gustave] Chauvet, Riviere and me) there is a very good series of small Acheulean handaxes. For Laugerie Haute you have several pieces of an excavation entirely run out. With these tools are the scrapers, piercers, and knives. For Laugerie Basse the series is also beautiful. There are 75 pieces of first choice but the remains are not composed of entire pieces but a little less fine. There you have it, the values of the exact numbers: Solutrean Laugerie Haute: 40 very fine pieces of the 1st order, 20 fine pieces; Magdalen? ian (Laugerie Basse) 20 very fine pieces, 40 fine pieces; La Micoque (Acheulean) 7 very fine pieces, 18 fine pieces; Moustier 5 very fine pieces, 8 fine pieces; 2 Acheulean handaxes of the plateaus. There are 160 pieces (good and very good) of which the pieces are ordinary. This fine fellow and honest man [Peyrony] would want 300 francs of this series and the price which ap? pears very reasonable. Peyrony wrote to Wilson from Les Eyzies on 12 November 1900. Wilson had, by that time, received the collection. Pey? rony thanked Wilson for the 150 francs and wanted to know Wilson's evaluation of the collection, hoping that it pleased him. Providing additional information on the provenience of the artifacts, Peyrony wrote: Here is the detail of the case: 1. At the bottom, in a small wooden box, you will find 45 pieces, the finest of the Solutrean found in our Station of Laugerie Haute. By its side, folded in paper, there are other less fragile objects coming from the same locality. In the locality where 1 have excavated, the breccia bed was about 2 meters or 2.5 in depth and comprised: the surface, a very poor stra? tum containing only chips, broken bone and some crude scrapers (O.m 80 ap? proximately). Underneath this there was a stratum of large pebbles O.m. 40 to O.m. 50 thick. Then a good stratum, or rather several superposed strata, about 1 meter in thickness, containing the finest pieces. Finally, the last stratum con? tained very little, and rare pieces that one here meets with, of the Mousterian type. I have ones that 1 omitted to put in this sketch that 1 sent to you, but which I can address to you with the plan of the station, if you desire. 2. Separated by a newspaper, the objects mentioned above, is found, two Acheulean hatchets wrapped together, coming from an open air station on the plateau of the vicin? ity of Les Eyzies. 3. Above the two hatchets, are Mousterian points and scrap? ers, a series from our beautiful, classic station of Moustier. These objects have become very rare now. 4. Another series of objects of white color, coming from the station Cheleo-Mousterian, of Micoque, situated about a thousand meters from the Solutrean station of Laugerie Haute. It is composed of terraces as at Moustier. There is no abri; it is situated on the hillslope 40 or 50 meters above the level of the Vezere. 5. Finally, in the upper part of the case, are to be found objects from the Magdalenian station of Laugerie Basse. This station has been so disturbed that a study is impossible. These pieces were found within places which remained intact, mixed with pieces of reindeer hom. In the same letter, Peyrony indicated that other materials might be available: Now, if you desire that I should complete this series with objects that I can find in the future, will you tell me those that you desire, I shall reserve those that I may find. In a few days I will also have pieces from the Grotte des Eyzies, and from the great station of La Madelaine?do you desire them? I promise to you, that because of Dr. Capitan, I will continue to make to you advantageous con? ditions. Although descriptions of the artifact contexts are rather gen? eral, often referring to site, and sometimes level, worse prove? nience information is often the case for important objects in the Wilson collection. This may be a consequence of artifact col? lection at the time, emphasis on objects and stratigraphy, or im? precise management of artifacts during inventory and curation. Although Peyrony separated artifacts from the nearby sites of Laugerie Haute and Laugerie Basse, they were collectively ac? cessioned as "Laugerie Haute and Laugerie Basse" (Figure 56). The accession contains impressive objects of uncertain prove? nience, such as "Solutre or Madeleine" (Figure 57), and still worse, "unknown France" (Figure 58). Wilson may have purchased additional materials from Pey? rony. During Wilson's visit to the Paris Exhibition in 1889, he also purchased from Capitan a small collection of flint imple? ments from France and Italy. 78 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 56.?Drawings of worked bone (left) [catalog number 99563] and pho? tograph of splintered antler [catalog number 99569] from Laugerie Haute/ Basse, France. [Wilson accession (accession 42207).] Musee des Antiquites Nationales, St. Germain- en-Laye (ace. 18891) In 1887, a collection of casts of bone specimens from France and Switzerland was donated by the museum in St. Germain- en-Laye, France. In a letter of 18 March 1887, Wilson indi? cated to Smithsonian anthropologist O.T. Mason that the plas? ter casts of engraved and worked bones and figurines were re? quested by him for the Smithsonian Institution. Many of these casts appear as figures in Wilson's publication (1896) "Prehis? toric Art." Rau (ace. 19931) Dr. Charles Rau was born in Belgium in 1826 and emigrated to the United States in 1848. Rau began publishing anthropo? logical studies in 1859, and, in 1863, he became a contributor to Smithsonian publications (Glenn, 1992). Rau and Secretary Henry corresponded from 1867 to 1872. Rau indicated his great interest in conducting comparative work on new archaeo? logical findings from North America and Europe. He wrote to Henry on 24 February 1867: For many years I have devoted all my leisure hours to the study of comparative archaeology, and nothing has afforded me greater satisfaction than to trace the similarity in the development of the human race in both hemispheres. These in? vestigations naturally led me to a careful study of the relics left by the various branches for the human family, and my attention was devoted to everything that can serve to illustrate their former condition, from the simple implement upwards to the ruins of temples and cities. Some years ago, I went to Europe al? most exclusively for the purpose of examining the archaeological and ethno? logical collections. Rau's appointment at the Smithsonian began in 1875, when he became an assistant to prepare exhibits for the 1876 Centen? nial Exposition in Philadelphia. At that time, Rau published a series of popular articles on archaeological and skeletal evi? dence of early man in Harper's New Monthly Magazine, which were reprinted as a volume, Early Man in Europe (1876). In 1881, Rau was appointed curator of the Department of Antiqui? ties, a position he held until his death in 1887 (Hinsley, 1981). During those years, Rau was instrumental in collecting some significant Paleolithic materials from Europe, in addition to ethnological and archaeological materials from North America and other parts of the world. More than any other individual in the United States, Rau was most knowledgable about develop? ments in archaeology in the Old and New Worlds between 1860 and 1880 (Hinsley, 1981). Wilson (1890d:123) noted that "almost the entire life of Dr. Rau was spent in archaeologic studies. He was faithful, zealous, and devoted to his science." Despite his zeal, Rau did not make seminal contributions to theory or to fieldwork research, but he is best known as an early classifier of museum antiquities (Hinsley, 1981). In 1887, after Rau's death, a bequest from the his estate was accessioned {Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, 1890) that included Rau's personal library and his archaeological and ethnological collection. Wilson (1890d:125) indicated that the Rau collections derived from work prior to his Smithsonian appointment, indicating that "he had been an enthusiastic ar? chaeologist and this was the collection of his life-time. He added nothing to his private collection after his appointment as curator." Rau acquired his archaeological collection during his youth in Europe and during subsequent visits. Because the collections were personally developed by Rau, there is neither associated correspondence nor any identified object descrip? tions. Lovett (ace. 20116, 20225, 23040, 23170, 25615, 27077) Beginning in the early 1880s, a number of exchanges were made between Edward Lovett, of Croydon, England, and the U.S. National Museum. The exchanges were diverse and in? cluded accessions other than anthropological material. Lovett was an avid collector of anthropological material, both ethno? logical and archaeological. Mason wrote to A.L. Kroeber, pro? fessor of anthropology at the University of California, regard? ing Lovett's background: "He is an officer of the Bank of Scotland and is deeply interested in primitive culture. He has filled his house with all sorts of nice things from different parts of the world" (letter dated 25 June 1908). NUMBER 48 79 FIGURE 57.?Drawings of worked bones [catalog number 99809] from Solutre and La Madeleine, France. [Wil? son accession (accession 42207).] During 1884, Lovett corresponded and made exchanges with Goode (assistant director of the USNM) and Mason. In particu? lar, Lovett sought North American ethnological material, as in? dicated in Goode's letter dated 29 November 1887: "Professor Mason has shown me your letter of Nov. 7th, expressing a de? sire to receive more of our duplicate ethnological material, and your willingness to send certain objects in exchange, a list of which you enclose. These objects, Professor Mason states, he would very much like to receive, and I shall, therefore, be very glad if you will send them to us at your convenience. Prof. Ma? son will get up a nice collection for you in exchange." In 1886, Lovett proposed to Secretary Baird an exchange of Brandon flints for North American material. On 30 December 1886, Baird replied: "I am duly in receipt of your letter of De? cember 11th, in which you send a very interesting account of the gun flint manufactory in your Country, and offer to furnish a series of these flints, and illustrations of the work of manu? facturing them, in exchange for archaeological specimens from the United States. In reply, I beg to say that I shall be much 80 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 58.?Drawings of bone awls [catalog number 99733] from unknown provenience, France. [Wilson accession (accession 42207).] NUMBER 48 81 pleased to have the series of specimens to which you refer, par? ticularly the cores with replaceable parts showing the original nodule and its derivatives. How far I can meet your wishes for specimens in return, I cannot now say; but I would be glad to have you inform me of the cost of such a collection, with the privilege of paying for it either in money or in exchanges." The exchange (ace. 20225) was later received (in 1888), and con? sisted of a collection of modern gun flints from Brandon, En? gland, and Paleolithic material from Grime's Graves. Lovett wrote to Mason on 7 November 1887, regarding addi? tional exchanges: "I understand your museum is not well off in European & British Ethnology. I beg to enclose a list of a few things I could send you. They may or may not be of service to you, but some of them may; and if you came to select any, I will send them carefully packed and fully labeled, and you could send me in exchange a few more of your duplicate ethno? logical specimens. I will not say now what sort of things I am in want of, but when I send (if you select any) I will then tell you what I want & I am sure you will do what you can to oblige me in this way." Apparently, Mason wanted the collection, and on 7 January 1888, Lovett wrote to Mason concerning the ship? ment: "Some of the contents are rough and may be perhaps plainly called flakes, whilst others like the 2 Madras Paleolith- ics are rare and valuable." Lovett replied to Mason on 27 Janu? ary 1888: "As regards exchange I have already sent you a greedy list of wants to which I have not the bad taste to add; but if you will allow me to say it, I might tell you that many things that are common to you would be valuable to my Museum, and also that in case of variety a broken or fragmentary specimen would be better than none at all; also, that when you are really able to spare more than one of a thing I can find room for two or three; as I like series where possible." As a result of this con? tact, a collection (ace. 20116) of archaeological material from England and India was received as an exchange for ethnologi? cal and archaeological objects from North America. Lovett and Mason met in 1889, as indicated by Lovett's let? ter to Goode on 19 August 1889: I was delighted of seeing Prof. Mason whose conversation I enjoyed very much indeed. I am happy also to say that I think his visit will be to our mutual advan? tage; for on my part I understand much better, the class of objects which your Museum desires and although many of them are hard to get & will take months to obtain, still I feel almost able to say that in time I can send you nearly all the things Prof. Mason named. I am fortunate in having many friends (and ones who know a thing when they see it) at the Cape of Good Hope & also in India and I have at once written out explaining what is required. I have also written to enough 'agents,' as I call them in these islands & as I said before I hope to get you some of the things you want, if not all. I will try to send a box next month. Of course I also look forward to several objects of interest from your side, & Prof. Mason was very kind as to his promises to try to help me in my own special branch of study. I have derived much pleasure from the correspon? dence & exchange I have had with your museum & I hope that I may yet be of more service to you than I have hitherto, and enjoy the advantage of further correspondence & exchanges. On my part I will always do what I can for the Smithsonian, and although at times, objects are hard to get and expensive too, I always feel that 1 am more than repaid by the kindness & courtesy that I have invariably received from your museum officials. In the early 1890s, four additional accessions, including Pa? leolithic materials, were received. Goode and Lovett wrote sev? eral letters concerning the exchange of ethnological objects from the United States for Old World artifacts. In one of the last letters to Mason, on 15 May 1893, Lovett expressed his thanks for the specimens, indicating that the items were "greatly desired and pleasurable." Ransom (ace. 20668) In 1888, a miscellaneous collection of Paleolithic stone im? plements from England was received from William Ransom, Esq., of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, England. In exchange, a series of Native American stone implements and projectile points were sent to England. Ransom noted that eight of the Pale? olithic implements were found about 13 feet below the surface, in yellow clay, near Hitchin, Hertfordshire. Just below the im? plements were bones of Ursus spelaeus, Elephas primigenius, and the antler of red deer. On 29 November 1888, Assistant Secretary Goode wrote to Ransom and acknowledged receipt of the specimens and the shipment of exchange specimens to England. American Museum of Natural History (ace. 21293) In 1888, a cast of a flint implement from St. Acheul, France, was made from a specimen borrowed from the American Mu? seum of Natural History (AMNH), New York. The cast was probably made for exhibition purposes. The original implement was returned in January of 1889. Reynolds (ace. 21386) Secretary Spencer Baird began corresponding with Dr. Elmer R. Reynolds of the Pension Office, in Washington, D.C. during 1878. On 9 April 1879, Baird acknowledged Reynolds interest in obtaining a position at the museum and stated: "I am well aware of your interest in American Archaeology and the ability with which you have prosecuted researches into aborigi? nal remains in this vicinity." In 1888, a variety of stone imple? ments from France were purchased from Reynolds. In a memo? randum from Reynolds, dated 17 November 1888, the collection was noted to contain Paleolithic tools from a number of sites. Reynolds indicated that he purchased the material from three French aristocrats: "They are from the collection of the Count de Maricourt of Senlis, France, the Baron of Maricourt of Vendome, and Dr. Auguste Baudon of Mouy." Although most of the artifacts were considered genuine, Reynolds con? sidered the St. Acheul specimens to be "pseudo-antiquities." Cresson (ace. 23766) In 1890, materials from Le Moustier [Les Eyzies], France, were received as a loan from Dr. Hilborne T. Cresson of Phila? delphia. Cresson studied art and archaeology in France from 82 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY the mid 1870s until 1880. In a letter dated 30 October 1890, Cresson informed Wilson that he had collected pieces from Le Moustier in 1875. Cresson also was involved in the discovery of purported North American Paleolithic sites (Cresson, 1890, 1892). During this time, Cresson loaned artifacts to the Smith? sonian. The artifacts were from eastern North America and were thought to represent "preglacial" Paleolithic objects {An? nual Report, U.S. National Museum, 1891). In December of 1889, Cresson publicly revealed the Holly Oak specimen as evidence for Paleolithic people in North America. Carving on the specimen depicted a woolly mam? moth (Meltzer and Sturtevant, 1983) and closely resembled Lartet's famous woolly mammoth engraving from La Madeleine. In the early 1890s, the Holly Oak specimen was displayed at various international expositions and museums, in? cluding the Smithsonian, where it was accessioned. The speci? men was given little publicity because of its dubious authentic? ity, but Wilson (1898) apparently considered the artifact genuine. He subsequently illustrated it in "Prehistoric Art." Cresson was suspected of manufacturing this piece, likely to enhance his role in demonstrating the existence of a Paleolithic in America. Cresson eventually committed suicide in Septem? ber of 1894. Balfour (ace. 24708) In 1891, the U.S. National Museum exchanged specimens with Henry Balfour, curator of the Ethnographical Department, Pitt Rivers Collection, University Museum, Oxford, England. Prior to 1891, Balfour was subcurator and assistant curator with responsibility for organizing anthropological collections, including cataloging archaeological and ethnological speci? mens in the large collections of General Pitt-Rivers (Chapman, 1985). Part of the small exchanged collection consisted of Pale? olithic objects from Les Eyzies, France, and the rest were from an unknown location in France. Balfour and Holmes ex? changed collections and corresponded on the similarities and differences between Old World Paleolithic artifacts and Native American specimens from Piney Branch Quarry in Washing? ton, D.C. (see Holmes, 1897). A letter from Balfour to Holmes dated 9 September 1890 is of interest because it referred to Holmes' disbelief of a Paleolithic record in North America: Please accept my best thanks for the series of quartzite implements, which have safely reached me, & which I have acknowledged to Mr. Goode. I am delighted to have a series of the 'rejects' & to have had the opportunity of reading at lei? sure your valuable remarks upon the finds. Your evidence is certainly very convincing, & from a few specimens which had previously been sent to our museum, I was very much set against the possibility of their having any claim to be considered as finished Paleolithic implements. The resemblance to the European Paleoliths is, it seems to me, comparatively slight, though it is very interesting to find that [in] the early stages the Columbian implements so nearly correspond with forms which we believe to have been the finished tools of Paleolithic Man. The, so to speak, 'Embryological' aspect is interesting & suggestive. I do not see that the interest attached to these stones is in any way lessened by their being considered as of Indian manufacture rather than of Pa? leolithic date. This correspondence on tool form appears to be an obvious reaction against those who claimed that similar forms indicated the same antiquity. Museo Zoologico dei Vertebrati, Florence (ace. 24918, 25949) Murico H. Giglioli, director of the Museo Zoologico dei Ver? tebrati, Royal University, Florence, Italy, corresponded with Goode about a possible exchange agreement. Although ex? changes of biological material had been made between the in? stitutions as early as 1880, it was not until 1889 that ethnologi? cal and archaeological exchanges were discussed. In a letter of 15 July 1889, Assistant Secretary Goode attempted to establish contact between Giglioli and Otis Mason, who was about to visit Europe to attend an Exposition: "I have written a letter in? troducing to you Prof. Mason, our Curator of Ethnology, and I hope that if you are at the Exposition you will try to find him, for I am sure that there will be many subjects which it will be agreeable for both of you to discuss together." Nine months later, on 18 April 1890, Giglioli informed Goode that Wilson had visited him and had met his colleague at the museum. Giglioli also stated that he had recently read a letter from Wil? son seeking material from Italy: My friend and colleague Professor Mantegazza [anthropologist, in Florence] showed me the other day a letter which he had received from Mr. Thomas Wilson..., in that letter he tells Professor Mantegazza that he has sent him a box of archaeological specimens from North America for which he desires like specimens from Italy. Mantegazza and I will combine to do our best for him. Giglioli further noted that ethnological and archaeological materials were being prepared to exchange for the North Amer? ican materials: I write briefly to offer you my very cordial thanks for what you have, with marked and special kindness, done to meet my wishes regarding some of the types of modem stone implements used by the Natives of North America. I am fully aware that such specimens are now rare and very difficult to get, in fact my only chance of getting them was through you and the U.S. National Mu? seum, and I need scarcely say how greatly I appreciate your kindness in letting me have what you could spare, giving me thus considerable aid in completing the comparative researches on which 1 am engaged. I am putting together a set of specimens, ethnological and others, to be for? warded to the National Museum as an exchange for those sent to me; and you may be sure that I shall do my very best to meet the wishes of the Curators of Ethnology and Archaeology. In May and June of 1890, Giglioli and Goode corresponded several times, noting that materials were being gathered and sent. On 14 November 1890, Giglioli wrote to Goode that he was shipping ethnological and archaeological materials: I send you with this letter the lists of the specimens sent under the two headings 'Ethnological and Archaeological'; and I hope that you and both Prof. Otis Ma? son and Mr. Th. [Thomas] Wilson will be satisfied with the specimens I have sent, and that these will fill up gaps and serve to complete the series of your grand collections. NUMBER 48 83 FIGURE 59.?Cave bear canines (top) and mandible (bottom) [catalog number 149419] from Breonio Cave, Italy. [Museo Zoologico dei Vertebrati accession (accession 25949).] I have done my best and shall continue to bear in mind the desiderata of both gentlemen, for if, I trust my send[ing] will meet their approbation. I hope that they may be able to spare for me a few more types of ancient and modem stone implements and weapons from North America, yet missing in the small collec? tion of types of such implements for which I am forming; and thus our ex? changes may be continued. In the case with my specimens, in a wooden basket, you will find also a set of Archaeological specimens from Italy sent by Profes? sor Mantegazza in exchange for the specimens of a similar nature sent to him last March by Mr. Th. Wilson. I helped Prof. Mantegazza to select his dupli? cates so we have avoided sending the same things. Two exchanges of archaeological and ethnological material were made between the institutions. Correspondence on the second accession concerned ethnological objects and archaeo? logical materials from the Andaman Islands. Material associ? ated with the Paleolithic was sent to the Smithsonian, including a lower jaw, teeth, and bones of Ursus spelaeus from a cave near Breonio (Verona) (Figure 59). In exchange, ethnological and archaeological objects from North America were sent to It? aly, including stone tools collected by Holmes from the Piney Branch quarry in Washington, D.C. Receipt of the material was acknowledged by Frederick True, curator of mammals at the Smithsonian, who wrote to Giglioli on 5 December 1891. Giglioli's letter to Goode, on 30 November 1892, indicated his pleasure with the exchanges: "I have just received the box last sent to me through the Bureau of International Exchanges, con? taining the archaeological specimens which at your kind sug? gestion Mr. Wilson, was so good as to select for me. I am very much pleased with the specimens now received and very grate? ful for them, even the casts, which as you know are not favor? ites with me, and of which there is a fine assortment, are of great interest and represent well such types as I cannot get orig? inals of, being rarities or unique specimens." In closing, Gigli? oli noted that artifacts sent by Goode gave him "intense joy." Powell (ace. 27665) In 1893, an exchange was made for a collection of stone im? plements from England and France. The collection was ob? tained from TH. Powell of London. In a letter to Assistant Sec? retary J. Brown Goode on 10 June 1890, Powell indicated how the exchange was initiated: My late friend Mr. W.R. Davies of Overshorpe House Wallingford, Berksfhire] wrote me shortly before he died that an American gentleman had called upon 84 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY him & purchased a large number of flint arrowheads, celts & other neolithic implements found on the neighbouring Oxfordshire Hills. 1 am nearly sure he said this gentleman was connected with the Washington Institute. This would be about 18 months ago; & he further said this gentleman wished him to send more specimens from time to time. My home is not far from Wallingford & I now & then have flint arrowheads sent me & have a good many more speci? mens than I require. If this gentleman can be placed & still wants any I shall be pleased either to sell him some or exchanges for American prehistoric relics. The "American gentleman" to whom Powell refers in his let? ter may have been Otis Wilson. On the bottom of Powell's let? ter, Wilson noted that an exchange of American specimens for the European objects could be made. Wilson also requested that Powell should specify what he would send, namely a summary of the number and kind of implements, so that a corresponding exchange could be made. Wilson's suggestion was acted upon by True, who replied to Powell on 1 July 1893, stating: "If you feel inclined to forward a list of the specimens which you have to exchange, I shall be obliged to you. We could then make a se? lection of such as are desired for the National Museum collec? tion, and could doubtless send you an acceptable equivalent in American prehistoric objects." Powell replied to True on 19 Au? gust, indicating what material was available: "I have for ex? change a number of flakes cores, scrapers & other cut flints (neolithic) from various localities in England, but mostly from the South Downs, many of the specimens are bleached others in black flint; I have also a few Paleolithic celts, & some arrow? heads in flint from the Oxfordshire hills." In a memorandum dated 21 October 1893, Wilson informed True what he could send: "I will take pleasure in making up a collection of 50 or 100 pieces to be exchanged with Mr. Pow? ell. I will exchange our Paleolithic forms for his Paleolithic forms, also series of flints from Flint Ridge, Ohio. I should like to have in return, as I have said, his Paleolithic implements." True replied to Powell on 24 October 1893, stating: "Referring to your letter of August 19, reply of which has been delayed by the absence of Mr. Thomas Wilson, our Curator of Pre-historic Anthropology. I now take pleasure in saying that the National Museum will be pleased to exchange Paleolithic implements with you. We can send you a number of implements and also a series of flints from Flint Ridge, Ohio, representing in large part the method of quarrying flint, and showing many of the various kinds of implements manufactured. In exchange, we shall be pleased to receive some of your Paleolithic imple? ments." In a letter dated 17 November, Powell responded by listing some of the objects to be forwarded, including Pale? olithic implements from England and one from France. On 7 February 1895, Goode announced the shipment of the speci? mens to Powell, finalizing the exchange: "I am very glad to be now able to announce the shipment of two boxes containing two hundred and twelve archaeological specimens in exchange for the collection received from you in 1893. I very much hope that the collection now transmitted will be considered a satis? factory equivalent." Camp (ace. 28914) Two handaxes from Africa were purchased by the Smithso? nian from J.H. Camp in 1895. Camp was a steamboat operator who had a long relationship with the Smithsonian and who col? lected a wide range of natural history specimens. Noting Camp's relationship with the Institution, True wrote to F.H. Newell of the National Geographic Society on 19 March 1892: "Mr. Camp has been a correspondent of the Museum since 1885, and has, at various times, presented collections of natural history and ethnological objects to the Museum, including a somewhat extensive collection from the Congo region. He has never asked for compensation, appearing to prefer to place his collections where they may, in his opinion, be of greatest value. Mr. Camp is in charge of the steamer 'Henry Reed,' belonging to the American Baptist Missionary Union." In a letter dated 19 March 1892, True indicated to Camp that the museum was pleased with their relationship: "Your kind offer to collect addi? tional objects for the National Museum is highly appreciated, and I assure you that we shall be glad to receive and exhibit in your name any specimens which you may find it convenient to transmit to Washington." Years later, Camp expressed his in? tention to provide more specimens to the National Museum, writing to Secretary Samuel P. Langley on 11 January 1895: "Please remember that I am always ready to do what I can for our Museum in any way and at any time." Quick (ace. 29853) In 1895, an exchange was made for ethnological and archae? ological material from the collections of Richard Quick, who was a curator of the Horniman Museum in London. In a letter to Assistant Secretary Goode, dated 7 March, Quick expressed an interest in exchanging material for North American artifacts. On 18 April, Goode indicated that a set of casts of prehistoric implements was being transmitted in exchange for the ethno? logical and archaeological material. Among the collection sent by Quick were two Paleolithic handaxes from England. Harrison (ace. 30109) In 1895, the Smithsonian purchased a Paleolithic collection (for 5 pounds Sterling) from Benjamin Harrison of Ightham, Kent, England, which is located 40 km southeast of London. Harrison, who was a grocer, had made significant discoveries of ancient British artifacts at Gravesend, Thames Valley, and at unknown localities, for which he eventually received the Lyell Geological Fund Award from the Geological Society of Lon? don (Grayson, 1986). Sir Joseph Prestwich, a famous geologist, and chairman of Geology at Oxford University, had written several publications on Harrison's significant discoveries (e.g., Prestwich, 1889, 1892, 1895). Because the age of the artifacts was controversial, excavations were conducted and additional ancient artifacts were found (Harrison, 1895), although scien? tists could not agree upon the definitive cultural nature of the NUMBER 48 85 specimens (Grayson, 1986). The purchase included crudely chipped flint implements, or "eoliths," from the Chalk Plateau, Kent, and from the Thames gravel. In a letter dated 5 April 1895, Harrison wrote to Wilson about the eolithic controversy and the value of the collection. With regard to the field work associated with establishing the authenticity of the eoliths, Harrison noted: "It has been a long arduous task & necessitated close & persistent work & obser? vation for the past 8 years (though noticed many years be? fore)." Harrison indicated that Prestwich had proven the exist? ence of "eolithic man" in England, and this was now assumed. Harrison also revealed that there was some controversy con? cerning the existence of the eolithic deposits, stating that "all the scientists who came to examine [the localities] went away convinced?& those who went to the Plateau [were] equally satisfied as to the geological position?whilst those I have had to fight against refrained from coming to carefully examine." Harrison also noted that the British Association had excavated on the Plateau and had uncovered rudely flaked implements in a seam of gravel underlying seven feet of stratified deposits, which was capped by later Paleolithic tools from the upper two feet of drift. Regarding the potential availability of collections, Harrison offered to carefully select a series of the eolithic implements, some of the materials originating from the Thames on the 100- foot gravel terrace. Harrison noted that the collection could be purchased and informed Wilson that he had "offers from deal? ers in London...but [was] desirous you should possess because you have been keen on the track of Paleolithic Man" (5 April 1895). The collection from the Thames Valley and the Chalk Plateau was eventually sold. Hough (ace. 31440) In 1896, 16 prehistoric objects from a cave in the "Red Rocks" at Menton, France, were donated to the Smithsonian by Walter Hough. Hough was an employee of the U.S. National Museum, and had personally collected the artifacts in 1893; therefore, there is no correspondence concerning this collec? tion. Seton-Karr (ace. 32485,40597,47957) From 1896 to 1907, Sir Henry W. Seton-Karr, who resided in Wimbledon, Surrey, England, corresponded with Smithso? nian officials concerning the institution's purchase of natural history specimens, including archaeological collections. The Seton-Karr collections were received with interest, and the ac? count of one of his expeditions was published by the Smithso? nian (Seton-Karr, 1906). According to Smithsonian accession documents, Seton-Karr was considered a "big-game hunter" and "discoverer of archaeological sites," who sold objects to various museums. Seton-Karr died tragically at the age of 61 when the ocean-liner he was on, the RMS Empress of Ireland, sank on 29 May 1914 in the gulf of the St. Lawrence River in Canada as a result of a collision (Zeni, 1998). Seton-Karr had been admitted to the Bar in 1879, and he served for 20 years as a Conservative Member of Parliament (Zeni, 1998). His archaeological discoveries and collecting were recounted by Jacques de Morgan (1926:156-157) in his book, La Prehistoire Orientale: It is to Mr. Heywood Seton-Karr...whom we owe the discovery of the flint mines in Egypt. It was this great hunter of the most redoubtable animals of Af? rica and Asia, and who was at the same time an amateur who was as knowl? edgeable as he was enthusiastic concerning matters of prehistory; it was he who had discovered the beautiful Paleolithic sites of Somaliland [now Soma? lia]. In India, he had collected some highly interesting Quaternary pieces on the Penaar [sic; Penner] River; finally, passing through Egypt, among other places in 1896, he left his carbine rifles at rest and began to explore the desert. It was thus that he discovered the flint mines of Wadi-el-Sheikh and of Wadi-Sodjour. A very generous man, Mr. Seton-Karr profited numerous museums of these magnificent discoveries, the series of Cairo are indebted to him for hundreds of objects from Upper Egypt and the Fayum, the Museum of Saint-Germain is amply endowed with pieces from Somaliland and I have seen gifts made by this explorer even in the Museum of Malta. In La Prehistoire Orientale, Morgan (1926:156-157) de? scribed many of the localities in Somalia where Seton-Karr worked, noting that artifact assemblages were deposited in the Musee de Saint-Germain, France. Morgan described the Egyp? tian specimens as chipped stone tools from mines, whereas those from Somalia and India were described as Paleolithic ob? jects. Seton-Karr's collections from these same archaeological localities are now in several museums in Europe and North America. Seton-Karr (1896) described the circumstances of his Soma- lian investigations in an article, "Discovery of the Paleolithic Stone Age in Somaliland (Tropical Africa)." In the article he noted he had discovered some stone implements during his third and fourth journeys in Somaliland, and that this was the first evidence of the Stone Age found in tropical Africa. He also mentioned that Sir John Evans doubted the Paleolithic age of the specimens because of their surface position, but Seton- Karr was confident of their great antiquity (Seton-Karr (1896:271-272). He also described the reasons for the success of his subsequent explorations: "Equipped with the experiences of four previous expeditions, during which I have traversed the flint producing district in various directions, and now more pre? cisely knowing where they were not to be found, I was able to confine myself to searching the most promising places. I was also better acquainted with the forms of the larger and heavier palaeoliths which I had not previously seen, but which might be expected to occur, of a size equal to those found in the gravel drifts of the valley of the Somme. The result was the dis? covery of numbers of very heavy and perfect weapons, princi? pally in one spot." The locations of the discoveries were noted as between the Red Sea and 9?30'N latitude and between 44?E and 45?E longitude, in soil that "was and is in process of being gently washed away by showers or blown away by wind, leav? ing the surface in a gradual state of denudation." 86 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY -JM \ **/T 5 cm FIGURE 60.?Handaxes [catalog numbers from left to right, 195405, 195374, 195415] from Somaliland [Soma? lia]. [Seton-Karr accession (accession 32485).] In a letter dated 29 April 1896, Seton-Karr described his dis? covery of African Paleolithic objects and expressed his interest in selling some of the objects: On four out of five journeys in Somaliland [Somalia] I have found some proba? ble Paleolithic stone implements. These are, as far as I know, the first which have come from tropical Africa, excepting a few from Upper Egypt. After reading a paper about previous finds, at the British Association Meeting last September at Ipswich, I determined to make about a month's journey into the interior to about lat. 8.N. from Berbera, and, solely to search for other and larger types than hitherto found. Of the largest types (of quartz and flint) I brought to the coast sufficient [numbers] to be able to spare one or two to each of the principal museums which are able to pay. The only persons who have yet seen them are Sir John Evans, who this week makes a communication on the subject to the Royal Society and Mr. CH. Read of the British Museum, who came here to see them yesterday and who already has some smaller ones I found on previous expeditions. In 1897, the Smithsonian purchased this Paleolithic stone- tool collection from Seton-Karr (Figure 60). After another field visit to the same area, Seton-Karr wrote a letter on 28 June 1897, offering additional materials: "I returned from the E.[ast] about 3 weeks ago, & wish to ask if you desire to acquire some of my new Somaliland Palaeoliths, the most perfect known, and from the only palaeolithic locality ever discovered." Seton- Karr then described the number of specimens available for pur? chase and their prices. In a response on 14 July 1897, True in? dicated the Smithsonian was interested in making a second pur? chase: "The various propositions contained in your letter of June 28, with reference to selling to the Institution some of your paleoliths from Somaliland, have been duly considered, and I now take pleasure in enclosing an order for a series of fifty at a cost often pounds. Please select as perfect specimens as can be supplied." Seton-Karr replied in July of 1897: "I have sent the implements from the Palaeolithic City in Somaliland. As it was for the Smithsonian Instit.[ution] I have sent a good deal more than the 50 you requested, & as perfect a series as I could. I should be glad if you could keep the series together as much as possible. I have packed them in five boxes (& two packets of flakes from Marodijeh 20 m. S. of the 'City'), all en? closed in a steel case." Several years later, Seton-Karr sent labels for the Somaliland artifacts that were then on display at the National Museum. As? sistant Secretary Rathbun acknowledged their receipt in a letter to Seton-Karr dated 17 October 1902: "I am informed by Mr. W.H. Holmes, Head Curator of the Department of Anthropol? ogy, that the labels have now been placed as requested on the stone implements from Africa which you were so good as to present to the Museum." Exhibit cards that were placed with the artifacts in the 1930s described Seton-Karr's expeditions. The first card, entitled "Early Man in Africa" (an extract from the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 1931), stated: "Mr. Seton-Karr found prehistoric implements in East Africa in 1893?the first ever found there, although some had been dis? covered in South Africa in 1866, by Dale. The late Sir John Evans, Treasurer and Vice-President of the Royal Society, wrote concerning them (see proceedings of the R.S. [Proceed? ings of the Royal Society] 359:19, 1896). "Mr Seton-Karr was fortunate enough to meet with specimens in form absolutely identical with those from the valley of the Somme (in France) and we need not hesitate in claiming some as palaeolithic." The second card, entitled "Man's Early African Ancestors" (dated 1935), read: Mr. H.W. Seton-Karr during nineteen expeditions to Somaliland, E. Africa, has concluded his examination of the district round Hargeisa. The prehistoric stone NUMBER 48 87 tools are found in certain spots where Palaeolithic Man seems to have lived, and where the surface could neither be washed away nor the site buried. Chellean, Acheulean, and other types are represented. It has been shown by the East Afri? can Archaeological Expedition to Kenya, from the deposits and lake-beds near Nakuru and other places that the artifacts date back to the Mindel-Riss intergla- cial (before the 2nd Major-pluvial or Gamblian) or even up to the 1st Major-plu? vial or Kamasian, corresponding to the Guntz-Mindel glaciation in the Alps. In addition to the Somalian material, Seton-Karr donated materials collected in India. The first accession consisted of 15 Paleolithic implements from the laterite deposits of Poondi, 29 miles (46 km) west of Madras, India. On 1 January 1903, Se? ton-Karr wrote that he shipped 96 implements found in the lat? erite deposits at Poondi and requested that the Smithsonian co? ordinate the distribution of these materials as follows: the National Museum would retain five good examples and 10 oth? ers; other institutions would get the 81 remaining pieces, in? cluding the University of California at Berkeley; the Field Co? lumbian Museum, Stanford University; Amherst College; the University of Pennsylvania; and the Drexel Institute (now Uni? versity) in Philadelphia. In a memorandum dated 19 February, Holmes wrote to Mason stating that he would assist in distrib? uting the specimens according to Seton-Karr's wishes. On 9 March 1903, Rathbun wrote the following form letter to the six institutions: "At the request of Mr. H.W. Seton-Karr (31 Ling- field Road, Wimbledon, S.W., London, England), I am sending you by express a box containing some Paleolithic implements which he collected in the lateritic deposits at Poondi, near Ma? dras. Mr. Seton-Karr begs that you will accept the specimens for the institution over which you preside; that they be suitably exhibited and labeled; and that you will send him an acknow? ledgment of their receipt." Stimulated by a personal visit to Washington in 1907, Seton- Karr wrote to Rathbun on 23 June, asking him about the exhib? its: "I forgot whether during my last visit to Washington you said that there would be a gallery or place devoted to the Stone Age of Europe, Africa, and Asia; my impression was that at present the foreign things were not represented. I think I do? nated Somali, Egyptian, and Indian collections to you? I should be pleased to present my own private collection of selected im- plts [implements] if you would inform me whether it is in? tended to add a prehistoric foreign gallery to the Museum." Holmes drafted a memorandum for Rathbun, stating the fol? lowing: I was pleased to hear from you and glad that you made the inquiry in reference to our exhibit of archeology, from Europe Africa and Asia. 1 may say that the nucleus of a collection in which your contributions occupy a prominent place in value and importance is exhibited in the great Hall of Prehistoric Archeology where as much as is possible under our present limited space is put on view. The new building will allow healthy expansion and there will be a separate hall or space devoted to Europe Asia and Africa. Permit me to thank you in the name of culture history students for your interest in this research and in mu? seum-building and to assure you that your contributions of prehistoric objects are much appreciated. Rathbun responded to Seton-Karr on 10 August 1907, indi? cating the importance of the future exhibits: Replying to your inquiry as to whether it is the intention of the Museum to pro? vide for the exhibition of prehistoric foreign objects, I would say that the nu? cleus of such a collection, in which I need hardly mention that your contribu? tions occupy a prominent place, is already on exhibition in the Hall of Prehistoric Archeology in the Smithsonian building, where as much space as is now possible has been assigned to it. In the new Museum building, now in the course of erection, it is planned to have a separate section entirely devoted to the archeology of Europe, Asia and Africa, and in this space, I shall be very glad to exhibit your own collection, which you have so generously offered to present, and which, I may add, the Museum will be glad to receive. Apparently satisfied with responses from both Holmes and Rathbun, Seton-Karr then donated a second collection of mate? rial from India. Seton-Karr wrote to Rathbun on 19 September 1907, de? scribing the provenience of the Indian objects and the nature of their discovery: "In accordance with my promise I have much pleasure in donating the following from my private colln. [col? lection] to your Museum if you will honor by accepting them. ...The remainder consist of a splendid series of Paleolithic Im? plements from the pleistocene lateritized alluvium of the Pen- naar [sic; Penner] river valley, now high up on the hillsides, and dug from a depth of many feet, generally by natives dig? ging water-pits. I hope you will be able eventually to give them a good location with suitable inscriptions in the new foreign prehist. sec. of the National Museum." Regarding labels, Se? ton-Karr made a request: "Might I suggest that when Museum labels are attached it makes it more interesting if it is made plain that the donor is (as in this case) also the finder; otherwise the objects might be supposed merely to have been purchased" (Figure 61). Assistant Secretary Rathbun replied on 19 Novem? ber 1907: "Mr. W.H. Holmes, Curator of Prehistoric Archaeol? ogy, considers the collection to be one of exceptional interest and value, and I can assure you that it will be exhibited to the best advantage in the foreign prehistoric section of the Mu? seum. I entirely concur with you opinion that, in cases where FIGURE 61.?Handaxes [catalog numbers 248202 (left), 248203 (right)] from Penaar [sic; Penner] River valley, India. [Seton-Karr accession (accession 47957).] 88 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY the collector and donor of specimens are the same person, the label should signify this fact, and I have directed that this be done with reference to the present gift." Miguel (ace. 36097, 43727, 44831, 46030) Beginning in the late 1890s, the Smithsonian made exchange agreements with Jean Miguel, a geologist from Barrubio, Herault, in southeastern France. In 1898, a collection of geo? logical and paleontological material was sent to Miguel, and in letter dated 15 December 1899, Miguel indicated that material from Herault and a neighboring region were being sent, in ex? change for the fossils from the United States. Sometime during 1899, the first archaeological material from him (ace. 36097) was received. In 1905, a gift of two lots of prehistoric specimens from France and Algeria were sent to the Smithsonian by Miguel (ace. 43727, 44831). In an undated letter to Mason, Miguel wrote: "I have the honor to send you by post a small collection of prehistoric objects from France and Algiers. If it suits your convenience, I would like to make...exchanges, and hope that I will be able to give you entire satisfaction. I have tried to offer you especial types. An analogous sending from your country would be entirely to my liking." Apparently the Smithsonian did send specimens as an exchange, as indicated by Miguel's letter to Langley, dated 15 June 1905: Several days ago I received the fine lot of prehistoric objects which you were good enough to send me. I thank you for it. For many years I have been on the best relations with the U.S. National Museum for the exchange of geological and prehistoric objects. 1 shall be happy to continue them. I beg you to transmit to the authorities of the Smithsonian Institution my offers for important collec? tions of chipped flint and of fossils from the best deposits of France. I shall add to my next exchange a complimentary box of prehistoric specimens to com? plete the compensation for your last sending. Although Miguel was apparently satisfied with the previous exchanges, he wrote to the Smithsonian on 5 August stating that he had an additional 50 prehistoric items, but that this time a purchase by the Smithsonian would be most desirable, as he was in need of funds. He noted that the price for the material was very reasonable, one-half or even less than the normal price. Upon receipt of this proposal, Assistant Secretary Rath? bun solicited the advice of anthropologists in the U.S. National Museum. In a memorandum to Head Curator W.H. Holmes, dated 19 October, Smithsonian anthropologist E.P. Upham for? warded the results of his review of the existing collections: "The specimens heretofore received from Mr. Miguel are mainly from the caverns in southern France, and although in? teresting in themselves do not add much except as duplicates to the collections we already have. With the exception of a few specimens from Algeria, the Wilson collection recently ac? quired covers about the same ground with a representative se? ries of objects. Still the offer of '50 good, various and well pre? served prehistoric objects' might be worth considering." After considering this offer, Rathbun replied to Miguel on 30 Octo? ber: "The Museum will be pleased to continue to exchange specimens with you, but cannot purchase any new as it has no funds available for the purpose. The fifty prehistoric objects re? ferred to in your letter of August 5th, may be forwarded at any time. Unless there are certain special classes of objects which you desire to obtain in return, I will endeavor to have a suitable equivalent selected for you from the duplicate series of speci? mens." In a letter to Rathbun, dated 10 May 1906, Miguel noted that he would send additional material as another ex? change (ace. 46030), but he also made a stronger appeal that future sendings must be through purchase: I had prepared a fine collection of large and small museum specimens; but, when 1 came to send them, the expense of carriage was too great for my slender purse. I had to replace the large flint prices by much lighter bones. I hope, how? ever, that the collection thus modified will still be to your taste. It includes some very good specimens. In return, I shall receive with great pleasure any? thing you may be fit to give me in the way of chipped stone, preferably arrow- points. It would be an easy matter for me to send to you flint and fossil speci? mens of every age, superb specimens... but, in addition to making exchanges, it would be necessary to purchase a case from me time to time, as other museums do, in order to recompense me a little for carriage and the expense of excavat? ing. I should send good things, cheap, and I am sure you would be pleased. If you would order a trial collection for 100 francs in geology or even in prehis? toric specimens, you would be at liberty to lower the price or to return the box if you were not satisfied. After this final accession was received, correspondence with the Smithsonian ceased, and no additional purchases or ex? changes were made with Miguel. McGuire (ace. 37330) In 1900, an archaeological collection was donated to the U.S. National Museum by Judge Joseph D. McGuire of Washing? ton, D.C. The assemblage consisted mainly of a private collec? tion of North American material, but within the collection was material from Paleolithic sites in France. A few years earlier McGuire had published "A Study of the Primitive Methods of Drilling" in the Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1894 (pages 623-756). McGuire wrote to Secretary Langley on 7 April 1900 to inform him that he had been in contact with Baird, Wilson, and Holmes for many years. The letter con? cerned the North American collection but did not mention the Paleolithic material. Steierli (ace. 38268) In 1901, a collection of Paleolithic material was donated to the U.S. National Museum by Professor J. Steierli of the Uni? versity of Zurich. Most of the material was from a cave near Schaffhausen, Switzerland, although a few objects were from Dordogne, France. In a letter dated 10 May 1901 to the Ameri? can Consul at Zurich, Steierli noted that the collection was a "gift to the U.S. National Museum in Washington (Prehistoric Division, Tho.[mas] Wilson, Curator)." He enclosed his book, Urgeschichte der Schweiz, and "a small collection from the fa? mous cavern, Kesslerloch, Thayngen, (Schaffhausen)," which included breccia, cores, waste, scrapers, knives, perforators, NUMBER 48 89 gravers, and animal bones. A. Lieberknecht, United States Consul in Zurich, arranged the material transfer. Following this, the Third Assistant Secretary, United States Department of State, wrote to Secretary Langley, on 10 June 1901, that a book and two boxes of specimens were being sent to the museum. Else (ace. 38778) In 1901, a collection of archaeological specimens from Kent's Cavern was purchased from W.J. Else, curator of the Torquay Museum, England. In a letter dated 13 September, Else indicated that the material was from the original Pengelly excavations: 2cm FIGURE 62.?Hyaena mandible (top) [catalog number 214258] and gnawed bones (bottom) [catalog number 214263] from Kent's Cavern, England. [Else accession (accession 38778).] I am sending you a rough list of a collection of Kent's Cavern remains which I have for sale. I expect you to have heard all about the cavern... [and] the reports of the exploration. [Given the need for]...space for other things, I want [to] the sell most of them. I would take L6 for them. The Director of Museums at Liv? erpool H.C. Forbes Esq. L.L.D. advised me to write to you. The name of the deposits from which the specimens were taken 1 can give you, as they were packed are to be found in the British Association Reports 1865 to 1880. My fa? ther was the curator of this museum for 25 years, until his death in 1896 and helped Mr. Pengelly, the explorer of the cavern, a good deal, and just before Mr. Pengelly was taken ill he gave 6 or 7 large boxes to my father, and most of them contained Kent's Cavern remains. I have had them in cabinets at my home. On 17 December, Else provided a list of objects from Kent's Cavern that he described as flint scrapers, worked flakes, and bones of "mammoth, Irish elk, hyaena, cave bear, lion(?), and horse" from the "Cave Earth," and samples of the "Granular Stalagmite" and the "Black Band" deposits. Among the faunal pieces in this collection are a hyaena mandible and gnawed, long, bone fragments (Figure 62). In an internal Smithsonian memorandum of 15 October 1901, anthropologist Thomas Wil? son wrote that he found the Kent's Cavern collection of inter? est: "We have quite a number of examples from Kent's Cavern, received during the excavation. But these (in this list) are inter? esting. The price is not exorbitant & I suppose other museums would gladly pay that sum for them. This would furnish us with a good showing from that cavern & that country & that epoch." In a memorandum dated 26 October, the Acting Chief Clerk wrote to R.I. Geare, the chief of the Division of Corre? spondence and Documents: "By direction of the Assistant Sec? retary I send herewith for transmission to W.J. Else of the Mu? seum of Torquay, England...covering a collection of Kent's Cavern Remains... the price agreed upon being $30 [about $731 in 2003 dollars]." Albany Museum (ace. 43544) In 1904, an exchange was made for an assorted collection of stone implements from the Albany Museum, in Grahamstown, Cape Colony, South Africa. The accession was acquired through Dr. Selmar Schonland, who was the director of the mu? seum. Correspondence between Schonland and Smithsonian officials dates from 1889, the majority of which concerns the exchange of biological specimens. For example, in a letter dated 18 September 1889, Schonland mentioned his interest in receiving an exchange for some of his archaeological materi? als: "I should be very happy if the exchanges instituted be? tween the Smithsonian Institution and the Albany Museum would be continued. At present I can only offer you a number of... rocks from the Transvaal,... but if you would let me know what you would like to have from this colony I would write to some of our numerous correspondents who would not fail to assist me in collecting for you." It was not until five years later, however, that the exchange of archaeological material commenced. Schonland wrote to Assistant Secretary Rathbun on 5 September 1904 that he in? tended to send shortly "a consignment of stone implements 90 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY from South Africa for which I would like to have some more ethnological specimens from North America in exchange." In an undated letter, Rathbun replied: "Regarding the new ex? change which you propose, we shall be pleased to receive the stone implements, etc., offered, and will endeavor to send you a suitable equivalent in North American ethnological objects, as you desire." The material was sent to the Smithsonian, as noted in Schonland's letter to Rathbun on 26 September 1904: "I have pleasure in informing you I have to-day forwarded...a box containing stone implements from South Africa. I trust that your specialists will find a few things amongst them that may be of interest to them." In a list provided by Schonland, he noted that the archaeological material was of variable ages, in? cluding relatively late material, consisting of "bushman" and "pigmy" artifacts from open-air sites and caves. Of the material that he considered of "extreme antiquity," there were artifacts from East London, Cape Colony, from a gravel bed below aeo- lian rock, and from a mud 70 to 80 feet above the Buffalo River. Artifacts from the Bezuidenhout Valley, Transvaal, had been collected by J.P. Johnson (1904), who attempted to place the items in a culture-stratigraphic sequence, from the Eolithic to the Neolithic. Nightingale (ace. 46550,49416) The Reverend Robert C. Nightingale of Beachamwell Rec? tory, Swaffham, Norfolk, England, donated two collections of archaeological material to the Smithsonian. The first donation was proposed in a letter to the director of the Bureau of Ameri? can Ethnology, dated 9 October 1905, in which Nightengale provided some information about the Swaffham material: "This Parish is on the chalk; and flint is found on and very near the surface. My idea is, the prehistoric men came here, to hunt and to work the flint, in the summer on the higher grounds. We are just on the edges of the fenland, and the adjoining prov? inces are Bar (Bear) ton, Ox (from the wild oxen) borough." On 16 November, Assistant Secretary Rathbun accepted the of? fer. On 17 August 1906, Nightingale wrote to Rathbun and stated: "I propose forwarding to your agency...a box contain? ing fourteen packages of flint implements and one package of Romano-British Pottery, etc. The implements have been mainly selected to show processes of manufacture. Generally the contents of each package have been in one spot, and if not they have been found near together." Regarding the Paleolithic objects, "The flints are selected from over a thousand speci? mens. With respect to parcels 12 and 13,1 would refer to 1161 or (perhaps) 1242 bulletins from Reports of [the] Smithsonian Institution." In 1908, a second collection of worked flint was accessioned as a gift. Four pieces were chosen to illustrate the process of producing a scraper, four were finished scrapers and three were 'potboilers.' In a letter to the Secretary, dated 9 Sep? tember 1908, Nightingale noted that the pieces were found in Swaffham. Martin (ace. 47416, 55671, 71635) For twenty years, from 1907 to 1926, Dr. Henri Martin, a Pa? risian medical doctor and the excavator of La Quina, in Charente, France, corresponded with Smithsonian officials. They wrote about exchanging North American material for Middle Paleolithic collections from La Quina and about scien? tific issues regarding the Neanderthals. The first of three acces? sions of La Quina material from Martin was made in 1907. In a letter dated 6 February 1907, probably to Walcott, Martin wrote: "I have just received your box containing the 2 humeri of bisons which I had asked for. They give me the greatest pleasure and will enable me to make comparisons with our Quaternary bison. I shall at once forward some Mousterian flints from La Quina for the U.S. National Museum, and am glad to know that they are esteemed in America. Our distant Stone Age is abundantly represented in France, and the few specimens that I shall send you will probably fill a gap in the museum." Months later, on 12 May, Martin sent the material to the Smithsonian and wrote: "Finally I have sent you a case of worked flint, demonstrating the Mousterian period. I have found them in the site of La Quina (Charente) France. I should have sent them to you long since, in exchange for the two fine humeri of the bison which you sent me, but I have always de? layed the sending?being much occupied with my many pa? tients." In 1913, a second collection of artifacts from La Quina was received in a transaction arranged by Dr. Charles Peabody of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mas? sachusetts. Peabody queried Head Curator W.H. Holmes on 13 June about the Smithsonian's interest in receiving a donation of La Quina material: "May I trouble you as far as to ask whether the National Museum has any of the 'Mousterien' flints and marked animal bones from La Quina (Charente, France). As I think I told you Dr. Henri Martin presented three series (partly excavated by Mrs. Peabody & myself) and is anxious (I think) that one of these should be presented in his name to the United States Government." On 18 June, Assistant Secretary Rathbun replied to Peabody: "We shall be very much pleased to receive one of the series of the specimens above mentioned, which you believe Dr. Henri Martin wishes presented in his name to the United States Government." In a letter dated 28 June, Peabody wrote to Holmes: "I take pleasure in forwarding you this day a box containing 12 packages containing 6 specimens each (with an extra package containing 2 specimens; also a piece of brec? cia)?75 in all, being the collection of palaeoliths from La Quina, (Charente), France, presented by Dr. Henri Martin, 50 rue Singer, Paris." The inventory listed scrapers, gravers, rude worked flakes, flakes, chips, tooth of reindeer, tooth of horse, bones of ox, bones of Cervus dama (?), and 1 piece of breccia. Rathbun sent letters of acknowledgment to Peabody and to Martin on 16 July. Martin and Hrdlicka met in 1912, after Martin had made ma? jor discoveries of Neanderthals at La Quina. Hrdlicka made some of his major anthropological conclusions based upon the NUMBER 48 91 La Quina specimens. Like Hrdlicka, Martin thought that the Mousterian had shown an increase in technological sophistica? tion from its earlier phases and was indicative of a gradual tran? sition from earlier stone-tool industries (Spencer, 1979; Spen? cer and Smith, 1981). Hrdlicka corresponded with Martin on matters relating to La Quina and the acquisition of casts of the recovered Neanderthals. On 27 August 1913, Hrdlicka re? quested additional information on La Quina from Martin, not? ing that he was writing a brief summary of the most important discoveries in Europe relating to "early man," for inclusion in Smithsonian publications. Hrdlicka thanked Martin for sending the La Quina cranial and postcranial casts in exchange for Na? tive American crania and requested additional cast reconstruc? tions. From 1922 to 1926, Hrdlicka and Martin corresponded regarding the acquisition of casts, and during a visit to France in 1923, Hrdlicka met with Martin. After the visit, Hrdlicka wrote to Martin on 12 November 1923, indicating his interest in the site: "I have brought back a very vivid recollection of your site at La Quina. You have a hard and long work before you and I trust you will be able to carry it out to the end for it seems to me that the deposits are bound to give you such valu? able information; they are quite unique in some of their fea? tures. I shall be glad to hear of any discoveries that you may make." Further evidence of Hrdlicka's intense interest is shown in his letter to Martin dated 8 May 1926: "I suppose that before long you will be leaving again for your cherished spot in south? ern France. I hope that sooner or later you may excavate again in the old and rich Mousterian layers which in all probability contain additional treasures. At all events please remember that every bit of news from you as to the progress of your work will always be of genuine interest to me; and should you discover any new skeletal remains I should endeavor to make it known at once in a proper form in our country." A third exchange was made in 1924 for additional specimens from La Quina. On 14 December 1923, Dr. Henri Martin wrote to Secretary Walcott, inquiring about the possibility for acquir? ing faunal material for comparative purposes: "At the sugges? tion of my friend Dr. Hrdlicka I write to ask whether you could let me have by way of exchange some skeletal pieces of the blue fox. A skull, even if defective, and some bones of the limbs would be sufficient for me. I could send you some bones?teeth principally?of the reindeer, bison and Mouste? rian horse, as well as Ursus spelaeus." On 7 January 1924, W. de C. Ravenel, who was the administrative assistant to Secre? tary Walcott, replied: "I take pleasure in announcing the trans? mittal to you of one skull and four feet and leg bones of the Alopex." Martin responded to Walcott on 26 January, indicating his pleasure with the faunal remains and describing the ex? change material that he would be sending: "I thank you for the sending which I have received containing skeletal pieces of the blue fox. These bones are very precious to me to compare those of the Mousterian fox of the Charente which differs from our present fox: and the fossil fox has affinities with the one from Alaska. I am sending you some pieces; but in Charente I own numerous specimens, while in Paris I cannot send you any im? portant series. Nevertheless here I have made a selection of pieces from the museum." The collection consisted of five Mousterian flint scrapers and three worked bones. In the letter of 26 January, Martin provided one photograph and three sketches of bones. The photograph is of a first phalanx of a horse, in Mousterian context, noted to have "utilisation pro- fondeX One sketch is of a first phalanx of a bovid, from Upper Mousterian deposits. On the sketch Martin noted that there is on one face of the anterior section a zone of grinding, suggest? ing the piece was used for compression. In the sketch of the left astragalus of a reindeer, there are traces on the internal face corresponding to disarticulation of the tibio-tarsals. The third sketch is of a first phalanx of a horse found in the Upper Mous? terian deposits. On the anterior face there are deep grooves. Ravenel, administrative assistant to the Secretary, sent a formal acknowledgment to Henri Martin on 22 April 1924 for the col? lection. Stonestreet (ace. 49689) In 1909, a collection of roughly shaped stone implements found near Christiana, southwestern Transvaal, South Africa, was donated by George D. Stonestreet of New York City. There are no documents referring to this collection except for a visit? ing card, referring to Stonestreet's delivery in person. Musee d'Histoire Naturelle, Elbeuf (ace. 49696, 50268) In 1909, two exchanges were made with the Musee d'His? toire Naturelle, Elbeuf. During 1908, the director of the mu? seum, Professor L. Coulon, and Smithsonian officials corre? sponded about possible exchanges. Coulon wrote on 9 June 1908: "You asked me for some archeological objects. I imagine you desire objects of prehistoric archeology, that is to say, tools of flint. In that case I shall be able to give you full satisfaction. Please let me know if these are what you desire, and I shall act immediately." On 29 June, Head Curator Holmes dictated to W. de C. Ravenel what should be said in reply: "We are glad to re? ceive, in exchange, collections illustrating the prehistoric arche? ology of some particular district in France, especially if ar? ranged to show the successive stages and purposes of culture." Ravenel expressed Holmes' wish on 3 July, in a letter to Cou? lon. Coulon replied on 29 October, stating that he had just re? ceived some very important local collections and would take up the exchange soon. In a letter dated 1 January 1909, Coulon wrote: "I send you 4 boxes containing a certain number of pre? historic flint objects from this vicinity. I have selected them as carefully as possible; but, as I am not very well informed on the subject, I beg you to tell me candidly whether you are satisfied with them. If not, I shall send another lot after consultation with a competent person who will select the specimens for the col? lection. I have done my best to please you. If I have not suc? ceeded, it is owing to my ignorance." Coulon indicated that the 92 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 63.?Handaxes [catalog numbers from left to right, 255082, 255078, 255090] from Rephaim, Palestine. [Clark accession (accession 50010).] collections were from the vicinity of Elbeuf, including Petit-Es? sarts, Commune of Grand Couronne, from Paleolithic clays of the plateau, at about 114 meters; Radepont, in Eure, from clays along the coast; and St. Julien de la Liegne, in Eure. In an inter? nal memorandum to anthropologist Walter Hough, dated 11 February 1909, anthropologist Edwin P. Upham indicated that the collection was evaluated and found to be "adequate." The materials also were noted to be from "localities not heretofore represented in the Museum," and therefore were considered "a fair exchange." On 17 February, Ravenel thanked Coulon for the prehistoric flints, noting that they "constitute a satisfactory equivalent" to the exchange for biological specimens. In the summer of 1909, a second exchange was made for ma? terials from the same localities, as well as material from Critot. Coulon was prepared to send additional material, as noted in his letter of 7 June 1909: "I have just got ready two little boxes of prehistoric flint specimens which I am going to forward to you at once. They are from the same deposits as the preceding ones, and will enable you to complete the series. I have se? lected them with the greatest care." The material from Critot (Seine-Inferieure), France, was Mousterian in age. In ex? change, Coulon expressed interest in receiving additional bio? logical specimens. In a memorandum to Hough dated 13 July, Upham noted that the material was complementary to the first accession: "The specimens belonging to this accession...for? warded by Prof. Coulon, are entirely satisfactory, and with the former sending (No. 49696), make an instructive exhibit from the prehistoric stations." In a letter to Coulon, dated 19 July 1909, Ravenel noted that the boxes of archaeological material had arrived safely, the specimens were satisfactory, and the col? lection would be recorded as an exchange for duplicate biolog? ical materials. Clark (ace. 50010, 57311) In 1909, a collection of objects from Bethlehem, near Jerusa? lem, was received from Herbert E. Clark, United States Vice- Consul for Palestine. In a letter of 19 April 1909, written by Herbert's brother, Frank C. Clark, it is stated that a collection of flint objects was being donated to the museum. In a reply to Herbert Clark, on 7 May, Assistant Secretary Rathbun stated: "These specimens are very interesting, and constitute a most acceptable addition to the collection of archeological objects from the Holy Land." On 15 May 1909, Herbert Clark wrote from Jerusalem, describing his finds. He indicated that he had collected so many flint implements that he felt some should be sent to the Smithsonian and some to the British Museum. Clark noted that he found the stone artifacts (Figure 63) in 1907 "along a water course and depression of the Plain of Rephaim, Gen. XIV, 5; Joel [sic; Joshua] XV, 8; XVIII, 16?an extensive Paleolithic camp half a mile long. ...The place on the Plain of Rephaim is one mile from the Jaffa Gate of this city in a S.W. direction." In 1914, a second collection of chipped-flint imple? ments, from a valley west of Samaria in Palestine, was donated by Clark. The second accession contained no other documenta? tion because Clark made his presentation in person, leaving only his calling card. Gorjanovic-Kramberger (ace. 54826) In 1912, plaster casts of hominid skeletal remains and associ? ated stone implements from the site of Krapina, Croatia, were donated to the U.S. National Museum by Dr. D. Karl Gorjan? ovic-Kramberger, of the Narodni Museum, Zagreb. Gorjan? ovic-Kramberger was a Croatian paleontologist and was the principal excavator of the Krapina cave. Hrdlicka visited the Narodni Museum in 1912, and afterwards he wrote to Gorjan? ovic-Kramberger on 10 October requesting skeletal casts of the Neanderthals from Krapina: NUMBER 48 93 I had the pleasure during the latter part of July to visit your museum, though regrettably you were just then absent. Professor Suklje showed me very kindly your precious collections of the human remains from Krapina, and I begged him to ask you for one or two casts of the complete lower jaw...for the U.S. National Museum. We now possess in plaster the representations of nearly all the skeletal materials of ancient man, but have nothing from your collection, which I regard as one of the greatest possible interest and value. With your permission, I beg to renew herewith my request and trust that you will favor us with my request and trust that you will favor us with the desired casts. In a letter dated 25 November 1912, Hrdlicka thanked Gor- janovic-Kramberger for the casts. Gorjanovic-Kramberger and Hrdlicka maintained a collegial friendship for many years thereafter, and he later became a defender of Hrdlicka's thesis that Neanderthals were direct ancestors of modern humans (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). Talken (ace. 54988) In 1913, a collection from South Africa was donated to the U.S. National Museum by Albert Talken of Windsorton, Cape Province. An introductory letter concerning the gift was writ? ten by William A. Haygood, United States Vice Consul-Gen? eral to South Africa, on 19 November 1912: "I have the honor to report that Albert Talken, a Pensioner of the United States Government, who is engaged in digging diamonds near Wind? sorton, on the Vaal River, Cape Province, has sent to this Con? sulate-General a package containing 8 stone implements" (Figure 64). In the letter, Haygood quoted Talken's correspon? dence to him: "I have sent you a parcel of stone implements. We call them 'Battle Axes.' I got them in a shaft 24 ft. deep, about 200 yards from Vaal River. They are in the gravel [in] which we find diamonds. An eternity must have gone by since they were deposited there. I would like to send them to the Museum, but you may do what you like [with] them." In the letter, Haygood stated that he submitted the stone implements to Dr. L. Peringuey, the director of the South African Museum, to ascertain if they were of sufficient historical interest to jus? tify sending them to the United States. Haygood paraphrased Peringuey's response: With regard to the Stone Implements you showed me, and which were sent to you from Windsorton, on the Vaal River, Cape Province, it is impossible for me to assign an age, beyond saying that they are of a type considered to be... very old; the designation for these artifacts being 'palaeolithic' The speci? mens are of very great interest owing to their situation; and I have dealt with these and similar objects, at length, in a paper 'The Stone Ages of South Af? rica,' in the Annals of the South African Museum. They are found in a gravel and boulder-bed situated from 50 to 80 yards from the present bed of Vaal River, and it is in these gravels that search is made for diamonds (the dry dig? gings of the miners). Assistant Secretary Rathbun wrote to Haygood and Talken on the 7th and 8th of February 1913, respectively, acknowl? edging the shipment and indicating that "the specimens are of particular interest and value on account of the bearing they have on the general question of the antiquity of man." Rehlen (ace. 55321) In 1913, an exchange was made with Dr. W. Rehlen, of Nurnberg, Germany, for Egyptian stone artifacts. The nature of the exchange was described in a letter dated 12 July 1912, from Holmes to Assistant Secretary Rathbun: "Recently Mr. Wilhelm Rehlen, Viceprasident des Verbandes Bayerischer Geschichts?and Urgeschicht-svereine und der Anthropolo- gischen Gesellschaft, Nurnberg, visited Washington, bringing a letter of introduction from Clarence B. Moore of Philadel? phia. This letter is as follows: 'Prof. Wilhelm Rehlen is on his way around the world in quest of evidence relating to Pale? olithic times. He has had the Abbott side of the Trenton grav? els, and is visiting Washington expressly to see you. He is, as you know, about the foremost man in Bavaria in his spe? cialty'." Head Curator Holmes described his meeting with Re? hlen, noting that he sought an exchange for American speci? mens: 5 cm FIGURE 64.-Handaxes [catalog numbers from left to right, 276191, 276189, 276186, 276184] from Windsorton, South Africa. [Talken accession (accession 54988).] 94 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Mr. Rehlen spent a day with me and I had considerable difficulty in getting him to understand the true conditions in American Archeology relating to the Pale? olithic man, and I shall be extremely glad to be able to forward to him a set of the Piney Branch relics. Mr. Rehlen was anxious to get, not only some of these specimens, but a few representative pieces of the various classes of American stone implements. He is willing to undertake to make some return in exchange, but I did not have time to reach any decision regarding the material that he may have available. If you approve of the sending, as indicated, I shall be very glad to make up a limited series of such archeological specimens along these lines as we can spare. In a written note at the bottom of the letter, Rathbun ap? proved the exchange. "Prof. Rehlen should be given to under? stand by letter that a return is necessary." In a letter to Rehlen on 28 August 1912, Holmes apologized for the delay in fulfilling his promise to send archaeological material: It was necessary that I should again visit the Piney Branch quarries and make certain excavations for the purpose of securing the specimens required in com? pleting the series. I may also say that I had difficulty in obtaining for you cer? tain other specimens which you desired, since our law requires that specimens already recorded in the Museum shall not be given away; they can, however, be sent out in exchange, and what I wish now to say is that I trust you will be able to secure for me a limited number of specimens illustrating the Stone Age in Germany or other European countries. This will enable me to conform with the established rules of the Institution. In a letter dated 24 December 1912, Rehlen replied: I understand perfectly your insisting upon the exchange. Also our Museums and Universities are bound by the same rules. The evil in my case is, however, that the Museum of which I am the protector is chiefly a Museum of local pre? history and has only a few duplicates; the same is with my private collection. I am therefore not able to give you much in exchange and I must renounce if that would not be sufficient. I can send you...some palaeolithic tools...from Egypt (Luxor). More to give is quite impossible to my great regret and that is very few. If that is sufficient I would be pleased to receive the goods you had the kind intention to send me di? rectly to Nurnberg. 1 know that the tools offered from me to you are not yet in your collection. On 22 January 1913, Holmes expressed appreciation for the offer and wrote that he would select a small set of objects to ex? change for the objects mentioned in the letter. On 27 March Rehlen answered that the desired objects were sent. In the final letter on the matter, dated 24 July, Rathbun acknowledged re? ceipt of the collection, noting: "In return the United States Na? tional Museum is forwarding...a box containing 64 stone im? plements. A diagram explaining the process of manufacture is transmitted. Besides the Piney Branch material, which em? braces 60 of the specimens in the present sending, there are also included two blades and two spear heads, in partial com? pliance with your request for examples of the various classes of American stone implements." Stadtisches Museum (ace. 55436) In 1913, an exchange was made with the Stadtisches Mu? seum of Weimar, for a collection of German archaeological material from the Taubach caverns (Germany). Dr. L. Pfeiffer, the museum's curator, had written to Head Curator Holmes on 28 September 1912, offering material from Taubach in ex? change for American artifacts, noting that German interest in North American prehistory was increasing. In a reply to an un? documented letter from Holmes, Pfeiffer on 10 December 1912, wrote that he appreciated the information concerning the Piney Branch quarry technology and expressed the need for a better understanding of the work being done in America. He also made the following offer: "I shall send you tomorrow for your museum a piece of stone from the calcareous tuff of Taubach-Ehnugedorf, with ashes, bones, coal and flint. Flint is very rare and generally imported. Usually mere chips are found. The proceedings of the Congress of Anthropologists in Weimar 1912 have not made it clear whether Taubach is to be regarded as Mousterian or Aurignacian. It is certainly post-gla? cial. If you wish to exhibit Taubach in your museum, I offer my services to complete the series." In a letter dated 12 May 1913 to Assistant Secretary Rathbun, Holmes noted that he wanted to exchange material, and in a note on the bottom of the letter, Rathbun approved of the exchange. In correspondence dated 3 July 1913, Rathbun wrote the final letter on the subject, thank? ing Pfeiffer for the specimens and noting that "six cases con? taining 430 specimens of archeological relics" had been sent in return. Rutot (ace. 55867, 56614, 58532) In 1913, 1914, and 1915 three exchanges were made with Professor Aime Louis Rutot, an engineer, geologist, and con? servator of the Musee Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Brussels. Rutot was a major publisher on scientific subjects, many of which dealt with the prehistory of Belgium (see Gray? son, 1986). This included publications on human ancestors and archaeological sites (e.g., Rutot, 1900, 1919). Originally an op? ponent of the notion of an Eolithic Period, Rutot later became a leading proponent of Eolithic artifact industries, engendering fierce controversy and debate with many other leading scien? tists from 1887 to 1910. During the summer of 1912, Hrdlicka visited Europe, where he met Rutot. In a letter dated 13 July 1912, Head Curator Holmes informed Assistant Secretary Rathbun that Hrdlicka sought exchange agreements with European scholars. Holmes quoted Hrdlicka regarding his desire to obtain European mate? rial: I think... it would be well to offer a large set of the Piney Branch stones, with perhaps some other primitive implements, etc., such as the 'turtlebacks,' and a few 'argillites' from Trenton, to Rutot (Mus. d'Histoire Naturelle, Brussels), for a selection from his paleoliths, many among which are wonderful speci? mens. The whole thing, the skulls, bones, stones, is, indeed, wonderful and is growing more so the more is found. And it is everywhere perceptible that An? thropology is reviving in consequence, assuming the position of a science not merely with a growing and promising superstructure but also with a solid and precious foundation. Holmes told Rathbun that he would be pleased to exchange some Piney Branch material: "I shall be extremely glad to have your approval of these proposed exchanges as I have an over- NUMBER 48 95 stock of the Piney Branch material. We have so little to repre? sent Europe in our Archeological collections that these sug? gested contributions will be more than welcome." Rathbun ap? proved the exchange. Concerning the first exchange, Rutot wrote to Hrdlicka on 19 May 1913: The consignment of Paleolithic instruments was ready, but after your departure it occurred to me to make casts of my finest pieces from the Pre-Strepyian, of which I send you an original series. I desire to add the casts of the principal pieces to the original series. They will thus make a magnificent series. On account of the difference in weight, my sending will comprise two boxes, one with the original pieces (Mesvinian and Pre-Strepyian) and one with the casts (Mesvinian, Pre-Strepyian, and Strepyian). On 10 June, Rutot again wrote to Hrdlicka: "I have the plea? sure to announce the three boxes of flint and casts [from Bel? gium and France] are about to leave for Washington. One box contains the original pieces (flint) of the Mesvinian and of the Pre-Strepyian. A second box contains the casts of the princi? pal Pre-Strepyian pieces to add to the originals of the Pre- Strepyian. The third contains the casts of the Strepyian and a cast to add to the Mesvinian." In a memorandum of 12 Sep? tember to Rathbun, Hrdlicka explained how the exchange should be handled: "The specimens received from Prof. Rutot are really a gift to our Museum, secured by me while abroad and due in a large measure to the friendly personal relations which I had with the Professor. However, he is very desirous of obtaining a few specimens showing the manufacture of In? dian implements, from us, and they should be sent to him as a matter of courtesy. Officially, the whole transaction may be entered as an exchange but the word 'exchange' should not be used in correspondence with Prof. Rutot because it might not please him." On 18 December, Hrdlicka wrote to Rutot about the shipment of American material: "We have shipped you, in return for the archeological material which you have kindly sent us, a collection of stone implements illustrating various American types and their manufacture." In a letter of ac? knowledgment, dated 20 January 1914, Rathbun thanked Ru? tot for the collection, and indicated that the American material was being sent: "Doctor Hrdlicka [sic] states that you ex? pressed a desire to obtain in return specimens illustrating the manufacture of Indian implements. I am very glad now to comply with your wishes, and a box containing 71 stone im? plements, enumerated on the enclosed invoice, is forwarded to you through the Smithsonian Bureau of International Ex? changes. There is also sent to you by mail a tube containing a diagram showing the steps employed in the manufacture of these implements." A second exchange was made in 1914. The collection in? cluded material from the Chellean, Acheulean, and Mousterian. In a letter to Rutot on 28 March 1914, Rathbun indicated that the artifacts were being sent to Rutot, and that more satisfac? tory pieces were wanted from him: It is found that among the Mousterien specimens in the last lot which you sent, 4 i%. **>?.. FIGURE 65.?Handaxes [catalog number 287974] from Templeux Le-Guerard, France. [Accession through Rutot for Panama-California Exposition (accession 58532).] only a very few show specialization of shapes for any purpose or indications of any kind of use, and in this connection permit me to say that a somewhat com? plete series of types of actual implements is desirable, as unspecialized forms have but little significance or value. There is now being sent to you by freight, charges prepaid, a box containing one hundred and thirty-four specimens of United States chipped implements together with a small set of thirty-nine of the higher class of pecked-abraded forms, of which some of the rarer ones are rep? resented by casts. This shipment, together with the series of seventy-one refuse objects from the Piney Branch quarries in the District of Columbia, which was forwarded to you in January, is intended to complete our indebtedness up to date and to provide something to our credit for a continuation of exchanges. Rathbun also thanked Rutot for the archaeological specimens from the first two accessions. The final exchange occurred in 1915, when Rutot forwarded archaeological material for display at the Panama-California Exposition, held in San Diego, California. In addition to the ar? tifacts from Belgium and France, Rutot sent stone tools from another French site, Templeux Le-Guerard (Figure 65). Hrdlicka and Holmes designed the exhibits at the exposition, and, at the completion of the show, the items received for this exhibition were sent to the U.S. National Museum and were classified as an exchange. 96 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY / ', I < FIGURE 66.?Handaxes [catalog number 284883] from Caraminco, Italy. [Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stock? holm, accession (accession 57262).] Marett (ace. 56924) In 1914, a collection of objects from two caves in Jersey, En? gland, were donated to the museum by R.R. Marett, of Exeter College, Oxford. Hrdlicka and Marett corresponded between 1912 and 1916 regarding a number of prehistory topics. On the subject of the explorations in the Jersey caves and the nature of the forwarded material, Marett wrote to Hrdlicka on 5 May 1914: I send you herewith a box containing 100 flint implements, hammerstones, etc. from our two palaeolithic (Mousterian) caves in Jersey. They are nothing much as specimens, but for the present at any rate everything is being kept in Jersey, so that students may study the collection as a whole. I asked leave of the Soci? ete Jersiaise before sending them (though they are all of my own personal find? ing), and, barring a handful of about the same quality which I have given the Pitt Rivers Museum, you will be the only museum to possess specimens from these sites at all; though later we may have more?and better ones?to distrib? ute to the leading museums, including, of course, yours. The stuff from La Cotte de St. Owen (which I take to be the older site of the two?see Archaeolo- gia, 1913) is extraordinarily rough throughout, and if unsupported by the evi? dence from the other cave, might well nigh prove indeterminable; through in? cluded there are just a few well defined Mousterian points, and also an implement worked on both sides and resembling one of the Acheulean (Car- mont's (?) Mousterian avec coup-de-poing). The other cave has yielded some splendid points, a characteristic pleistocene fauna, and 13 teeth of Neanderthal type (as on Keith's showing). Our new excavation has been most fruitful, and I shall tell you about it when we meet in October. There is no flint in the island as you know; so every piece found in either of these caves has been carved and chipped by man. The happiness stones?small granite pebbles often broken so as to give a flat edge?are very characteristic of this site; also the thin diabase pebbles often split which served presumably as 'polissoires.' One I am sending has a very well-marked rubbing-edge. One stone is from the hearth and shows the marks of fire; another also has been subjected to heat and is possibly a 'boiling-stone.' The implements show plenty of utilization but very little sec? ondary chipping. These people, however, were capable of occasional master? pieces in that line but they are as 1 in 1000. Don't thank me. I owe the Smithso? nian Institution an unpayable debt already for the gift of literature. But the Little Museum (and library) of the Societe Jersiaise would welcome all sorts of unconsidered trifles, and the commonest things from America would be educa? tion over there. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm (ace. 57262) In 1914, an exchange was made with the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum in Stockholm, Sweden, through Professor C.V. Hartman, the head curator. The correspondence mainly con? cerned the North American material, only noting that Pale? olithic objects from Caramanico, Italy, had been donated to the U.S. National Museum in return (Figure 66). Buckingham (ace. 59162) In 1915, stone objects from North America and Paleolithic artifacts from France were donated to the U.S. National Mu? seum by Mrs. Edgar Buckingham of Chevy Chase, Maryland. The accession was probably delivered in person, as no corre? spondence was found. The Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology (ace. 62402) In 1918, an exchange was made with The Royal Ontario Mu? seum of Archaeology, Toronto, through its director, CT. Cur- relly, for a collection of antiquities from Europe and Africa. In early 1912, Hrdlicka suggested an exchange with the Toronto museum. Currelly responded on 3 February, notifying Hrdlicka that materials were available and that the museum would be glad to make an exchange. A number of additional letters were exchanged between Head Curator Holmes and Currelly in 1912 and 1913, and an exchange of specimens was arranged. It was not until Currelly's visit to the U.S. National Museum in 1918, however, that he acquired Paleolithic collections. In a letter to the Secretary's administrative assistant, W. de C. Ravenel, on 23 January 1918, Holmes explained the nature of the exchange: "The Department of Anthropology has been discussing a pro? spective exchange between this Museum and the Royal Ontario Museum of Toronto. Dr. T.C. Currelly, the Curator of that Mu? seum has recently been here and we have made certain selec- NUMBER 48 97 tions of stone and pottery antiquities (84 American Archeolog? ical and 62 Ethnological) which we wish to exchange for archeological collections from the Old World?a branch in which we are very weak." On 28 January 1918, Holmes ac? knowledged receipt of the Currelly collection. The inventory included with the collection noted that material came from Furze Piatt, Maidenhead, England (Figure 67), and from the Thebaid, Libyan Desert. Currelly made note of several artifacts in the inventory, and in describing "Palaeolithic spear? head" number 4P8, he noted that these were "intensely rare, probably only about fifty being in existence" for the area. Of Palaeolith number 53, Currelly described a scenario for its use and discard: "Picked up during the palaeolithic period after the ovate had ceased to be used, and a large flake knocked out of it; some hundreds have been found that were treated in this manner and I think two or three were included in the former lot. These are particularly interesting as they show the double patination." Describing palaeolith number 57, he wrote: "These were all found lying on the bare rocks in the Libyan Desert where they had been lying since palaeolithic man had dropped them. In many places it was possible to see the stone on which the man had sat and the flakes and discards lying around. An examina? tion of many thousands of pieces has shown that the patination of the pieces that have been lying in the open varies according to the length of time since they were made." Currelly wrote to Holmes on 20 February 1918, providing more information on the Egyptian and English collections: "They were all found lying on the top of the limestone plateau in the Libyan Desert due west from Thebes. The English palae- oliths were from the higher gravels, now a considerable dis? tance above the present valley. As you will see the most charac? teristic form is what are called the old points; these, though known in Egypt, are comparatively rare, and run only a com? paratively short existence." Currelly also noted that he had classified artifacts based upon patination, indicating that the classification corresponded with distinct artifact styles. Of the French material in the accession, Currelly simply noted that "the pieces of great rarity are the ivory needle and the mysteri? ous 'Pointe a crain,' which are both exceedingly rare and valu? able." Ravenel wrote to Currelly on 4 February 1918, stating that ethnological and archaeological specimens from North America were being shipped to him in exchange. Marriott (ace. 63670) In 1919, a collection of prehistoric flint implements and bone fragments from France was donated to the museum by Mr. Crittenden Marriott of Washington, D.C. The accession notes that the materials were collected by Marriott and M. Peyrony, a French prehistorian. Ravenel wrote to Marriott on 6 June 1919, acknowledging receipt of the collection and expressing his "ap? preciation of this very interesting addition to the national col? lections." American Presbyterian Congo Mission (ace. 70046) In 1923, Paleolithic implements from gravels near Luebo, Belgian Congo, Africa, were donated to the U.S. National Mu? seum by the American Presbyterian Congo Mission in Luebo. The objects were delivered in person, and a Smithsonian staff member wrote a note about the collection, stating that "a mis? sionary brought it in but declined to give his name asking that all credit be given to the Mission." Ravenel wrote a letter of acknowledgment to the Congo Mission on 25 May 1923. FIGURE 67.?Handaxes [catalog numbers 303348, 303349, 303348, left to right] from Maid? enhead, England. [The Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology accession (accession 62402).] [The applied notes on the handaxes provide the site name and the date the specimens were found, "Furze Piatt, 14-2-09." Each of the specimens carries an inked artifact number, as noted by Currelly in his correspondence.] 98 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Moir (ace. 71310) In 1924, an exchange was made with J. Reid Moir of Eng? land for a collection of supposed eoliths. Moir's work during 1910 to 1939 (Grayson, 1986) was focused in Ipswich, Suffolk, on the east coast of England, where he documented "pre-Pale- olithic" tools (e.g., Moir, 1919). In the Red Crag deposits at Foxhall, near Ipswich, Moir discovered deeply buried Eolithic deposits (Figures 68, 69), which were accepted as genuine by many in the 1920s but which were subsequently discredited in the 1930s. The accession of these eoliths was engendered by Ales Hrdlicka through correspondence with Moir and by a visit by the American School of Prehistoric Research to England in the summer of 1923. Hrdlicka wrote a letter to Moir on 9 June, in? dicating that he planned to visit England: "On July 2 I expect to reach London with three or four students... of the 'American School in France for Prehistoric Studies.' One of our needs and hopes is to visit Ipswich, see your collections, and then visit the most important sites where the reported Tertiary human imple? ments etc. come from. I have known of your work for many years both from your publications and through Miss Fletcher, and I trust that you will make possible to us a visit both to your collections and to the sites mentioned." Hrdlicka wrote to Smithsonian anthropologist Walter Hough from Europe on 18 July, indicating that the group had visited various sites and had viewed several collections. We went to Ipswich, where we were...awaited by Mr. Guy Maynard, the Cura? tor of the Ipswich Museum. The 7th was spent in the Museum, which has ar? cheological collections of much value, and in visiting the most important sites that show traces of Quaternary Man about Ipswich including Foxhall. On the 8th we were at Cromer, where Mr. Savin showed us his invaluable paleonto? logical collection, and where under the guidance of Professor Barnes from Ox? ford (arranged by J. Reid Moir) we examined the worked flint bearing cliffs, the beech accumulations containing many chipped stones, and the Cromer for? est-bed location, as well as a large private collection of what are supposed to be Tertiary implements. As a result of these visits, Hrdlicka proposed an exchange to Moir on 13 October: "I was very sorry indeed to have missed you, for I wanted to make your personal acquaintance, to thank you for all the help we received at your Museum and about Ip? swich and to ask you whether we could not possibly obtain by exchange a small representative series of the highly interesting worked stones from the vicinity of Ipswich and Cromer in your collection." Moir responded on 29 October: "I shall be pleased to exchange a small series of Mt. Crag and Cromer flints but I am badly off for the former at present, as I have parted with so many, and you must give me some time to get some together for you." On 10 November, Hrdlicka indicated to Moir that material from Piney Branch would be exchanged for the eoliths: "I am glad to have your letter of October 29 in which you promise to form a small representative collection of flints for our Institution. We could send you American stone imple? ments including a series from Piney Branch, some of which so closely resemble palaeoliths and even eoliths." Ravenel sent a letter of acknowledgment to J. Reid Moir on 11 February 1924, also indicating that the Piney Branch material was being sent to Moir. Hrdlicka (ace. 71514, 89903) In 1924, Ales Hrdlicka, the head curator of the Department of Physical Anthropology, U.S. National Museum, donated a collection of material from several sites and countries. No cor? respondence accompanied the accession. It may have been Hrdlicka's personal collection, amassed during his trips to Bel? gium, France, and Egypt from 1908 to 1923. The Secretary's administrative assistant, W. de C. Ravenel, acknowledged the donation on 26 March 1924. In 1925, Hrdlicka donated a second collection of material, which he had acquired during his visit to South Africa. The trip to Africa was part of his worldwide trip in 1925 to meet col? leagues and to acquire collections. In an unpublished manu? script, Hrdlicka (n.d.) described the results of his visit to Rho? desia and the stone objects from Victoria Falls and vicinity: As to the 'paleoliths,' South Africa is very rich. They may be found in favor? able spots along the sea shore; they occur in the gravels, banks and vicinity of rivers, and they are also common in caves. On the whole they present forms rather more like those of India than those of old western Europe; but here and there are also close resemblances to the earlier or later European types. The question of the antiquity of these implements is doubtless complex and has not yet been satisfactorily worked out. A great many are found on the surface and are plainly recent; others may be ancient. That not all the sites where such im? plements occur and have hitherto been regarded as ancient, are of that nature, was seen along the Zambesi on both sides of the River at Victoria Falls. Here stone implements were reported as occurring in the ancient gravels of the river, deposited along the sides of the stream before the formation of the falls. A three-days' examination of conditions, in company with two Americans, a South African engineer and some negroes were sufficient to show that the cul? tural remains here extend over a considerable distance along both sides of the river, are numerous, superficial, and in all probability not very ancient. A good- sized collection of the worked stones from this locality is on its way to the Na? tional Museum. Assistant Secretary Wetmore formally acknowledged the gift on 7 January 1926. Archaeological Society of Washington and American School of Prehistoric Research (ace. 84988, 90005,98484, 95150, 95604,103151,107359,112197,115831,121286, 126298,132332,133080) From 1925 to 1935, 13 accessions, consisting of 8413 Pale? olithic artifacts, were received from the American School of Prehistoric Research. The artifacts were found at sites exca? vated by the American School under the auspices of the Ar? chaeological Society of Washington; thus, the collections often were alternately transmitted as a "loan," "deposit," or "gift" to the Smithsonian. The acquisition of this Paleolithic material re? sulted from Hrdlicka's direct involvement with the founding and development of activities of the school in Europe from 1925 to 1928 and the Near East from 1929 to 1935. NUMBER 48 99 FIGURE 68.?The label on the photograph, written by J. Reid Moir in 1924, reads "View showing excavation at Foxhall pit near Ipswich. The 16-foot level from which the implements, flakes and burnt flints have been recov? ered rests at the level indicated by the plank." [Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH.] From 1925 to 1930, seven accessions (ace. 84988, 90005, 98484, 95150, 95604, 103151, 107359) from the Castel Merle (Abri des Merveilles, France) excavations were received by the U.S. National Museum (Figure 70). During those five years, the transmission of the accessions followed a certain routine. Typically, at the conclusion of each summer's excavation, MacCurdy wrote to Hough, indicating that the Smithsonian's share of the collections was being shipped. After the materials 100 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY * wr ' ? ? f r '*?? ? , A : ... ^?:#J&^'*?X^;^X FIGURE 69.?The label on the photograph, written by J. Reid Moir in 1924, reads "View showing the Foxhall pit near Ipswich?also a view of myself! The iinplementiferous layer is indicated by the shelf on the left of the pho? tograph. The crag is capped by stratified glacial gravel." [Hrdlicka collection, National Anthropological Archives, NMNH.] arrived in the museum, Russell inventoried them and Assistant Secretary Wetmore wrote to Riggs, director of the Archaeolog? ical Society of Washington, to acknowledge their receipt. The Castel Merle accessions consisted of Mousterian and Aurigna? cian collections, including faunal remains that were identified as Cervid, Irish deer, Reindeer, Bison, and horse. The collec? tions also had a variety of stone artifacts, including a large number of Middle Paleolithic tools, such as scrapers of various NUMBER 48 101 ABRI DESfiERVEILLESATCASTEL-MERLE CROSS SECTION LOOKING WE5T R.S. ROCK SHELTER D.DEPOSIT COMPOSED OF MATERIAL REMOVED FROM R.5- PRIOR TO 1878 A. AURIGNACIAN HEARTH LEV/EL U.M. UPPER MOUSTERIAN HEARTHLEVEL L.M. LOWER MOUSTERIAN HEARTHLEVEL R, ROAD US. UNDERGROUND 6ALLERY FIGURE 70.?Cross section of Abri des Merveilles excavations. [Note the schematic portrayal of the archaeolog? ical layers and time periods. Published in MacCurdy, 1931, Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, fig. 5.] types and sizes (Figure 71). MacCurdy wrote to Hough on 29 August 1928, supplying information about labeling procedures: "Specimens not marked are from the lower Mousterian level (Middle Paleolithic Period). Specimens marked 'U.' are from the Upper Mousterian level (Middle Pal. Per.). Specimens marked 'A,' are from the Aurignacian level (Upper Pal. Pe? riod)." During Russell's evaluation of the Castel Merle collections, he decided that some specimens were, in his opinion, unworthy for accessioning. This decision is documented in a letter from Wetmore to Riggs, dated 20 February 1929, in which Wetmore explained why specimens from the 1926 deposit (ace. 90005) were discarded: "Mr. J. Townsend Russell, Jr., Assistant in Ar? cheology, has recently gone over this collection with the result that of the 976 specimens referred to only 765 found to be of value to the collection. The remaining 211 specimens include many fragments of mammal teeth and bones, unworked cob? bles and stone hammers showing minimum of use, and Mr. Russell recommends that these fragments be destroyed." These fragmentary and minimally used items apparently were dis? carded. Some faunal specimens, however, were considered worthy of curation, and some splinters were saved, perhaps be? cause of the markings on their surfaces (Figure 72a,b) or be? cause they showed fracture patterns on certain diagnostic bones (Figure 72c). The specimens deemed worth saving included formal tools, such as those classified as "cleavers" (Figure 73a) and the heavily used "hammerstones" (Figure 73b). The 1930 collection (ace. 95604) also was reduced some? what, after Russell determined that some of the material was worthless. In a memorandum dated 25 October 1930, Russell noted: "With this accession was a small quantity of splintered mammal bone and a few teeth which are useless for either ex? hibit or study purposes. I have therefore disposed of them." In another culling, "duplicates" of the Castel Merle collections were sent to another institution, as indicated by Wetmore to Riggs on 26 June 1933: "I am advised of your conversation sev? eral weeks ago with Mr. J. Townsend Russell when you acqui? esced in his suggestion that a few of the numerous duplicates in the collection from Castel Merle...be included in the series of 173 Paleolithic and neolithic artifacts we are presenting to Elm- ira College, Elmira, New York. None of the above Castel Merle specimens is of special interest and none is needed for the Mousterian exhibit we propose to install upon Mr. Russell's re? turn to Washington next autumn." On 30 June 1933, Riggs re? plied that the Society adopted a resolution approving of Mr. Russell's suggestion, authorizing the U.S. National Museum to send to Elmira College the selected specimens: "It was felt by the Society that this action is a constructive one, and that it would benefit the Museum by relieving it of the custody of oth? erwise unimportant duplicates, while at the same time filling out gaps in the College's collection." In addition to the Castel Merle collections, two other sites were represented in the 1925 and 1929 accessions. The 1925 accession (ace. 84988) included skeletal and archaeological specimens from the Solutre excavations. Mitchell Carroll, the secretary and director of the Archaeological Society of Wash? ington, noted in his letter to Secretary Walcott on 14 November 1924, that the Solutre collections were being shipped to the museum: "On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Archaeo? logical Society of Washington, I write to say that there has been transmitted to the U.S. National Museum by Professor George Grant MacCurdy, director of the American School of Prehistoric Research in Europe, four (4) cases of skeletal mate? rial secured in the excavations of Solutre, France, under the auspices of the Archaeological Society of Washington. We re? quest that these may be referred to Dr. Hrdlicka [sic], Head Cu? rator of Physical Anthropology, for purposes of research and for such permanent disposal as he may deem wise, as part of the loan collections deposited with the National Museum by the Archaeological Society of Washington, Inc." The 1929 ac? cession (ace. 103151) contained specimens from La Madeleine, France, the type site of the Magdalenian. 102 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 71.?Scrapers [catalog number 341844] from Abri des Merveilles, France. [Archaeo? logical Society of Washington and American School for Prehistoric Research accession (acces? sion 98484).] During the winter of 1929, the geographic focus of the American School began to change from Europe to the Near East. On 25 January 1929, MacCurdy contacted Hrdlicka, indi? cating that an invitation had been received from the British School of Archaeology to excavate in Palestine: "In Palestine they have just discovered a site which has yielded what appear to be examples of Paleolithic art. The site is to be quarried out within the next half year so that the only chance to dig it will be this spring. Miss Garrod has invited our School to cooperate in the digging in March, April and May of this year. The opportu? nity is so unusual and attractive that Miss Allyn [probably Dean Harriet M. Allyn, see Garrod and Bate (1937)] has de? cided to go as our representative." The new focus of the school led to a joint project sponsored by the American School and the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund to excavate sites in the Middle East. In 1930, MacCurdy do? nated material (ace. 112197) from two caves in southern Kurd? istan. The collections consisted of 20 Aurignacian stone arti? facts from the Cave of Zarzi, 50 kilometers west of Sulaimani (Sulaymaniyah), and eleven Mousterian scrapers, reworked flakes, and flakes from the Dark Cave (Ashkot-I-Tarik), 8 kilo? meters southwest of Sulaimani. On 1 November 1930, Wet? more wrote to MacCurdy to officially acknowledge the gift. From 1931 to 1935, five accessions (ace. 115831, 121286, 126298, 132332, 133080) were received as a result of exten? sive excavations conducted by the school at four major caves (Mugharet el-Wad, Kebara, Skuhl, Tabun) at Mount Carmel, Palestine. The collections represented the U.S. National Mu? seum's share of the artifacts found at the four sites. The acces? sions were either gifts from MacCurdy, or loans or deposits from the Archaeological Society of Washington. Importantly, provenience information had been assigned to all artifacts, NUMBER 48 103 5cm FIGURE 72.?Bone fragments from Abri des Merveilles, France, [(a) long-bone fragments [catalog number 341839] showing pitting, gouging, and rootlet marks; (b) long-bone fragments [catalog number 341871]; and (c) split long-bone shaft [catalog number 341838]. [Archaeological Society of Washington and American School for Prehistoric Research accessions [accessions 95150, 98484].] which agreed with the stratigraphic descriptions provided in a published compendium of the excavations (Garrod and Bate, 1937). The Mugharet-el-Wad collection was received in two sepa? rate installments (ace. 115831, 121286) in 1932. MacCurdy wrote to Hough, on 7 May 1931, providing information about the first collection from el-Wad: The Director of the University [of Pennsylvania] Museum, Philadelphia, will soon send to your institution...a series of prehistoric specimens dug from the cave of Mugharet-el-Wad, near Athlit, Palestine, by the joint expeditions of the American School of Prehistoric Research and the British School at Jerusalem. Each specimen is marked 'MW' which stands for Mugharet-el-Wad (Cave of the Valley). The additional letter on the specimen (A, B, C, D, E) refers to the culture level as follows: A. Bronze Age to recent. B. Mesolithic. C. Upper Pa? leolithic of Capsian affinities. D. Middle Aurignacian. E. Lower Middle Aurig? nacian. The second accession was similar but included, in addition to Upper Paleolithic and Aurignacian assemblages, Mousterian artifacts that were found in stratum F of the excavations. The final installment of el-Wad material consisted exclusively of Mesolithic assemblages. In a letter dated 5 October 1933, Mac- 104 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 0 2cm FIGURE 73.?Stone tools from Abri des Merveilles, France, [(a) cataloged as "cleavers" [catalog number 330586] and (b) hammerstone [drawing, catalog number 330619].] [Archaeological Society of Washington and American School for Prehistoric Research accession (accession 90005).] Curdy noted that the B level was divided into a Bl, Upper Natufian (Mesolithic) and a B2, Lower Natufian (Mesolithic). MacCurdy also noted that the site was briefly described in the Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, in numbers 7 and 8. The Upper Paleolithic to Mousterian assem? blages included stone blades, retouched blades, scrapers, grav? ers, nuclei (cores), points, rejects, and Levalloisian flakes. The Mugharet-el-Kebara assemblages were accessioned in 1932 as a loan (ace. 121286) from the Archaeological Society of Washington. On 1 October 1932, MacCurdy provided Hough with information on the collections and their labeling: "Each specimen is marked K (for Kebara) followed by a letter (B to E) indicating the level (age) from which the specimen came. See Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research No. 7." The collection from Kebara was classified as Mesolithic, Upper Paleolithic, Middle and Lower Aurignacian. The Upper Pale? olithic materials included retouched blades, retouched flakes, scrapers, perforators, nuclei (cores), and flakes (Figure 74). Among the unusual artifacts were an oval stone with engraved bands and a red ochre fragment. On 4 November 1932, the asso? ciate director of the U.S. National Museum, John E. Graf, wrote to Riggs to acknowledge receipt of the collection. The Mugharet-es-Skuhl materials were received in 1934 as a deposit (ace. 126298) from the Archaeological Society of Washington. In a letter to Hough, dated 5 October 1933, Mac? Curdy provided provenience and labeling information: "Those from Mugharet es-Skuhl are marked M.S.; Bl (upper level of the Mousterian Epoch); B2 (lower level of the Mousterian Ep? och). In addition there are a few Upper Paleolithic flints, as well as potsherds of a still later date." An inventory noted that the Paleolithic collection consisted of Aurignacian and Lower and Upper Mousterian assemblages. Among the assemblages noted were scrapers (Figure 75), points, retouched flakes, spoke shaves, cores, and flakes. The Mugharet et-Tabun collections were received as three separate deposits, two in 1934 (ace. 126298, 132332) and one in 1935 (ace. 133080) (Figure 76). The collections included many bifacial and unifacial tool types (Figure 77). The Tabun collections comprised a rich assortment of materials from spe? cific proveniences, including Upper Mousterian industries from Chimney I and Chimney II, Lower Mousterian from Lev? els C and D were Acheuleo-Mousterian from Level E, Upper Acheulean from Level F, and Tayacian from Level G. After re? viewing the first deposit, Judd wrote to MacCurdy on 14 May 1934: "The specimens form an unusually instructive series and we shall be pleased to place them on exhibit in the near future." MacCurdy replied on 21 May, noting that the results of the ex? cavations would be published in bulletin 10 of the school, which described the Tabun excavations. After reviewing the publication, Judd wrote to MacCurdy on 8 June: "This morning I have read Miss Garrod's article in the May Bulletin of the American School and am greatly impressed with the thorough? ness of her excavations. I congratulate you not only upon the success of last year's expedition but express the hope that the one now in the field may prove equally profitable." On 9 June, MacCurdy wrote to Judd that a collection from Tabun had been sent to the U.S. National Museum. "Each specimen is marked 'T' for Tabun and with a letter for the level from which the specimen came (see Bulletin 10, plate II). The specimens be? long in the following categories: handaxes, scrapers, steep scrapers, gravers, choppers, cores, flakes, Levallois flakes, blades, discs, various. A few are marked 'Chimney I' and NUMBER 48 105 2cm FIGURE 74.?Point, perforators [catalog number 365308]; scrapers [catalog number 365315]; and core [catalog number 365318] from Kebara, Palestine. [Archaeological Society of Washington and American School for Pre? historic Research accession (accession 121286).] 'Chimney II'." The age of the artifacts from the Chimney pro? veniences was clarified in a later letter by MacCurdy to Judd, dated 29 October 1934: "Miss Garrod says that 'Chimney I, II, and III are on top of Layer B in the cave.' They are therefore Upper Mousterian." On 19 February 1935, MacCurdy indi? cated to Judd the meaning of additional letters on artifacts: "The capital letters (C, D, E, F, and G) are the layers and the lower-case letters (a, b, c, and d) are the hearth levels of the Layer in question." The value of the Tabun collections was ac? knowledged in Wetmore's letter to MacCurdy on 28 August 1935: "It is a fine series, indeed, and I wish to congratulate you and your assistants upon the exceptional success of this impor? tant investigation." He continued: "I cannot, however, let pass the present opportunity to express our thanks to you for the ob? vious care taken to select a series which thoroughly illustrates the successive cultural levels in Mugharet et-Tabun." During the last years of the acquisitions, Smithsonian offi? cials and archaeologists recognized the generosity of the Amer? ican School for Prehistoric Research and the Archaeological Society of Washington, the importance of the collections they provided to the National Museum, and also the pivotal role played by George Grant MacCurdy. On behalf of the museum, Associate Director Graf wrote to Riggs on 15 June 1934 and expressed appreciation for the collections: "I would assure you that we greatly appreciate the interest of the Society in placing this material in the national collections where its public exhibi? tion is not only of great educational interest but serves also as a very tangible evidence of the value and results of the Society's contributions to the work of the American School of Prehis? toric Research." Judd expressed his thanks to MacCurdy in a letter dated 20 February 1935: "I wish you to know how greatly we all appreciate the personal attention you have given to se- 106 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY sp& 2cm FIGURE 75.?Scrapers [catalog number 368608] from Mugharet es-Skuhl, Pal? estine. [Archaeological Society of Washington and American School for Pre? historic Research accession (accession 126298).] lection of that portion of the annual collections intended for the National Museum through the Archaeological Society." The Archaeological Society of Washington obviously viewed the relationship as of benefit to the museum. This is clear in Riggs' final letter to Wetmore on 31 August 1935, in which he ex? pressed his "gratification...to contribute in slight measure to the enrichment of your collections." Williams College (ace. 85687) In 1925, an exchange was made with the Department of Ge? ology, Williams College, Massachusetts, through H.F. Cleland. Cleland was interested in acquiring Paleolithic materials to round out his teaching collection. On 18 January, Cleland wrote to the museum stating that he was teaching a course in European prehistory and that he did not have a representative collection of Paleolithic artifacts. Cleland requested from the museum any potential "duplicates to show the technique of chipping used in the different cultures." Cleland noted that he had Magdalenian collections from Dordogne, France, for ex? change and was willing to give up his "choicest material in ex? change for typical specimens." Ravenel, who was the adminis? trative assistant to the secretary, responded on 25 January 1925: "I beg to say that your suggestion of an exchange of specimens is noted with interest and gladly agreed to. We have Chellean and Mousterian specimens which we will exchange for the Magdalenian material which you offer." Cleland pro? vided more details on 1 February 1925, stating that he was sending Magdalenian materials from Laugerie Basse, Dor? dogne: "The specimens come from the rock shelter in the peas? ant's house just above the rock shelter of Laugerie Basse. Pey? rony says it is Magdalenian. I have tried to select as great a variety of forms and materials as possible. I have omitted bro? ken specimens. Anything you will give in exchange will be useful in my course on Prehistory [and] will be very wel? come." The next day Cleland noted that he also was sending material from Les Eyzies: "I am sending by mail to-day a small box of Magdalenian specimens from Les Eyzies, France. You will see upon examination that the specimens are first class. They are as good or better than those I have kept." In a letter on 13 February, Ravenel acknowledged the receipt of the ex? change, noting that the National Museum was sending to him 21 Paleolithic specimens. In a final letter on 18 February, Cle? land expressed his pleasure in receiving the material: "The Mousterian and Chellean specimens which you sent in ex? change for our Magdalenian material came yesterday. As we had only one Chellean coup de poing we are glad of these specimens. The Mousterian is not as good as I hoped for but it will fill a gap." Reygasse (ace. 88916) In 1925, a collection of stone implements from North Africa was received as an exchange from Maurice Reygasse, Admin? istrator of the Commune of Tebessa, Algeria. Reygasse sug? gested an exchange with the U.S. National Museum on 3 April 1924: "I shall be very much obliged to you to kindly inform me whether it would be agreeable to you to enter into exchange re? lations with me. I would send you [a] very good series of the African Paleolithic and would be glad to receive [a] good se? ries, quite characteristic and in very good condition, of the dif? ferent American prehistoric civilizations. I would be particu? larly enchanted to have fine specimens in obsidian which are missing in my collections." Ravenel replied on 25 April 1924: "I beg to say that the United States National Museum would be glad to receive additional specimens of African archeological material, and in order that the matter may be brought to a defi? nite understanding I should be glad if you would indicate the particular specimens which you are prepared to furnish with a tentative money value for each. We will then be able to send you in exchange, American archeological specimens to the same amount. Unfortunately our collection of obsidian is lim- NUMBER 48 107 FIGURE 76.?Photograph of the Mugharet et-Tabun excavations. [Labeled, "Looking out toward the Mediterra? nean from the mouth of the Mugharet et-Tabun (cave of the oven). The American School of Prehistoric Research excavations at Mt. Carmel. Arab workmen digging for Neandertal remains." Science Services, National Anthro? pological Archives, NMNH (number 50790). The photograph was published in Garrod, 1935, Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, plate 8.] ited, but we can supply you with specimens made from other materials." On 27 September, Reygasse responded that he could send neolithic and African Paleolithic artifacts, noting: "I shall be happy to possess an American series of equal value.... Kindly let me know also exactly what you want me to send you." The collection was valued at 1100 fr. by Reygasse, but he added: "The prices that I am fixing as a basis of exchange are entirely relative. It is certain that it would be absolutely impossible to obtain at that price the series which I offer you. In fact I am the only one to possess rich series of the African prehistoric. I have never sold, and I will never sell, a single specimen. I only agree to enter into exchange-relations, which will enable each of us to have serious materials for study." On 29 July 1925, Assistant Secretary Wetmore provided Reygasse with the list of speci? mens available for exchange, noting: "If the matter meets with your approval, therefore, we would suggest that you now pre? pare and forward the materials you listed." Reygasse replied on 108 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 77.?Stone tools from Mugharet et-Tabun, Palestine. Top row (left to right): chopper, discoid, and side scraper [catalog numbers 374360, 374361, 374357, respectively]; bottom row (left to right): handaxe, points, and graver [catalog numbers 372587, 374351, 368618, 374350, respectively]. [Archaeological Society of Washing? ton and American School for Prehistoric Research accessions (accessions 133080, 132332, 133080, 126298, 133080).] 21 August: "I have the honor to inform you that I am sending you by mail this day a very fine series of my Proto-Solutrian Industry, as well as a typical collection of our Middle Pale? olithic." On 19 October 1925, Wetmore wrote that the North African materials were received, and as an equivalent ex? change, 22 obsidian implements from the United States and Mexico were sent. Government Museum, Madras (ace. 88426) In 1926, Paleolithic specimens were donated to the U.S. Na? tional Museum by the Madras Government Museum. In 1925, Hrdlicka visited India in search of anthropological, archaeolog? ical, and paleontological collections. On 28 April 1925, Hrdlicka wrote to Hough from India, and after some discussion about travel, modern peoples and race, and collections, he noted: "Am now on the way to Calcutta to examine their col? lections. From there will probably go direct to Madras, where they have the largest collection of the "palaeoliths'." In 1925, Hrdlicka wrote about his travel to Madras in an unpublished manuscript: A great collection of Paleolithic implements is preserved in the Museum at Ma? dras. These implements are similar to those of other parts of India. They are all of one general class, so much that there can hardly be a question as to their con? temporary origin in the different parts of India and their connection with people in the same race and belonging to the same though perhaps a large cultural pe? riod. They do not show great variety. They resemble some of the Paleolithic implements of Europe, but on the whole cannot be associated with any one of the European cultural periods. They are something apart and, according to indi? cations, hardly very ancient. In certain parts of India, such as the Santal country north of Calcutta, such implements have been collected in thousands. They are found by the farmers as they plough, and curiously, ...the natives call them "lightning stones." In other parts, especially near Madras, they are partly on the surface soil, partly from one to four or five feet and even deeper below the sur- NUMBER 48 109 face. In places they occur in the alluvium of the rivers and occasionally in the "laterite" a talus-like debris resulting from the disintegration of the older rocks. In short, evidence as to early man in India up to the present, may be reduced to the statement that there are plentiful Paleolithic implements over large portions of the country, but that as yet they do not in any case definitely indicate a man of geological antiquity. Assistant Secretary Wetmore wrote to Dr. F.H. Gravely, di? rector of the Madras Government Museum, on 30 June 1925, requesting material from Madras" "Dr. Ales Hrdlicka [sic], Cu? rator of Physical Anthropology in the U.S. National Museum, has written to me of his recent visit to your museum, and I would assure you of my appreciation of the many courtesies which you have extended to him." Wetmore continued: "We would... like to secure a copy of each of the four catalogues of ancient implements published by your museum as well as a small representative collection of duplicates from your large collections of'palaeoliths' of southern India. Please be assured that this museum will be glad to exchange any of its duplicate specimens which may be desired." The materials were sent to the Smithsonian, and Wetmore formally acknowledged their receipt on 8 January 1926. Jones (ace. 89904) In 1926, a collection of stone implements from Rhodesia was donated to the museum by Neville Jones of the London Mis? sion School, located near Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia. The gift was the result of a transaction made by Hrdlicka, probably during his visit to that country. On 7 January 1926, Wetmore acknowledged the gift. Bodding (ace. 90169) In 1926, a collection of stone implements was donated to the U.S. National Museum by the Reverend P.O. Bodding of Mo- hulpahari, Santal Parangas, India. In a letter to Wetmore dated 21 October 1925, Bodding acknowledged his receipt of a col? lection of Smithsonian Annual Reports, indicating that it would be of assistance to him for his work on linguistics and ethnol? ogy. Bodding also alluded to how the subject of the potential gift was first raised: "When I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Hrdlicka [sic] here in May I promised him that I should send a sample collection of ancient stone implements found here in this district. I am having these packed and shall forward them through your Consul General in Calcutta very soon. I am send? ing samples of the different kinds met with here." Bodding wrote to Hrdlicka on 11 November, indicating that he had sent the specimens: At last I have been able to send the stone implements I promised you when I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting you in Darjeeling. They are packed in a wooden box which I sent down from the American Consul General in Cal? cutta, and I have an acknowledgment from him that he has received the box and will send it as soon as possible to Washington. I waited so long, partly be? cause F wanted to be sure that you were back in Washington, partly because I wanted to try to get hold of one special and very seldom form. 1 have sent in all 100 specimens, some fairly large ones, many quite small, so it is not easy to un? derstand what they may have been used for. They are all found here in this dis? trict (if you look at a map of India, you will see when the Ganges commences to turn to the southeast; the Santal Parganas district is south of the Ganges here). On 9 December 1925, Hrdlicka wrote to Bodding: "We have just had from our Consul in Calcutta the welcome news that you are ready to send us a lot of the stone implements from your region. They will be of great value." Wetmore wrote to Bodding, on 24 March 1926, acknowledging receipt of the col? lection. After examining the collection, Hrdlicka again wrote to Bodding, on 19 April 1927, indicating that the assemblage was an assortment of stone-age material: "The stones from you came in good condition. They evidently date all from the later or polished stone period, though some of them are not polished. There are no new forms, but the collection is a very interesting one nevertheless, and is I believe the only one of its kind in America." MacCurdy (ace. 92141, 99368,108178) Three small accessions were donated to the museum by Dr. George Grant MacCurdy of the Peabody Museum, Yale Uni? versity, in 1926, 1927, and 1929. Apart from the "gifts" trans? mitted by MacCurdy during the operations of the American School for Prehistoric Research from 1925 to 1935, these col? lections apparently were selected during MacCurdy's visits to Palestine and France. There is no correspondence associated with the last two collections. In 1926, seven Paleolithic stone implements from Palestine were donated by MacCurdy. The donation was preceded by a letter from MacCurdy to Hough, dated 2 May 1926, in which he stated: "On April 28 I sent you a parcel containing Pale? olithic (Acheulian) flints found by Mrs. MacCurdy and myself at Sambariyeh near Mutallah, headwaters of the Jordan, Pales? tine. They are sent to your Museum with our compliments." On 14 June 1926, Wetmore acknowledged the gift. In 1927, stone artifacts from three sites in France were do? nated by MacCurdy. A typed list indicated there were 4 Acheulian, 1 Mousterian, and 1 Chellean specimens. Wetmore acknowledged the gift on 9 December 1927. In 1929, Mac? Curdy donated six artifacts from La Magdalaine, Dordogne, France. The material was from the Magdalenian level of the rockshelter. In a memorandum from Judd to Hough (Smithso? nian curators), dated 9 December 1929, the collection was noted to consist of three scrapers and three gravers. On 13 De? cember 1929, Wetmore acknowledged MacCurdy's gift. Bushnell (ace. 93521) In 1926, a collection of stone implements, mostly from vari? ous localities in Europe, was donated to the U.S. National Mu? seum by David I. Bushnell of Washington, D.C. Bushnell was a collector of Native American artifacts, and he had written on the subject (e.g., Bushnell, 1939). The objects were delivered personally by Bushnell; thus, there are no accompanying no SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY records, except for a letter of acknowledgment from Adminis? trative Assistant Ravenel on 13 October 1926. Indian Museum, Calcutta (ace. 88427) An exchange was made with the Indian Museum in Calcutta, through Rai Bahadur Ramaprasad Chanda, superintendent of the Archaeological Section, for a collection of stone imple? ments from India. Assistant Secretary Abbott wrote to Sir John Robert Marshall, director of the Archaeological Survey of In? dia, on 25 June 1925, requesting an exchange: "Dr. Ales Hrdlicka [sic], Curator of Physical Anthropology in the U.S. National Museum, has written to me of his recent pleasant visit to your department. He advised me of the very interesting work being done by the Archaeological Survey of India and has asked that I request you to favor this Museum with a small collection of representative duplicates of Indian 'paleoliths' from the large collection now under your care in the Museum of Calcutta. We would, of course, be glad to send in exchange whatever you might wish from the collections in this museum along the same line." Chanda replied on 15 June 1926: "I beg to state that I shall be very glad to spare a set of small repre? sentative collection of the Indian Palaeoliths for exchange with your Institution, and in exchange I should like to have a repre? sentative collection of American palaeoliths." In reply, on 8 December 1926, Wetmore confirmed that a box containing 94 American stone implements had been sent to the Indian Mu? seum in Calcutta. South African Museum (ace. 101485) In 1928, seven Stone Age implements from Montagu Cave, South Africa were donated to the U.S. National Museum by the South African Museum in Capetown, through its director, Le? onard Gill. The gift was likely the result of Hrdlicka's visit to South Africa. On 26 March 1928, Gill wrote to Hrdlicka, stat? ing that a small collection of Early Stone Age implements from South Africa had been sent, which illustrated the series of chipped stone objects that could be found in the site (Figure 78). Assistant Secretary Wetmore sent Gill a letter of acknowl? edgment for the collection on 25 May. Provincial Museum, Czechoslovakia (ace. 107637) In 1929, casts of worked bone and a statuette found in Czechoslovakia were donated to the museum by the Provincial Museum, in Brno, Moravia, through Dr. Karl Absolon, who was a curator. Hrdlicka corresponded with Absolon throughout the mid- to late 1920s, and on 9 February 1926 he acknowl? edged Absolon's discoveries: "I wish to congratulate you heartily on the important discoveries which you have made in Southern Moravia and to wish you the greatest possible success in further research. There is a substantial hope that you may find another large burial place of Aurignacian man." In a sub? sequent letter, dated 7 May 1928, Hrdlicka offered some ad- 0 2cm FIGURE 78.?Stone tools from Montagu Cave, South Africa: (a) cores [catalog numbers 340931, 340930]; (b) handaxe (cleaver) [catalog number 340928]; and (c) handaxe [catalog number 340926]. [South African Museum accession (accession 101485).] vice: "I trust you will soon be starting with further work at Viestonice, and wish you all the possible success. I should like to urge again extensive soundings, for the determination of the total extent of the site, and location of its richest parts. I beg you to keep me posted on the results of the work, and particu? larly as to the finds of additional skeletal remains. You are bound sooner or later to discover numerous skeletons." A memorandum from Judd to Hough, dated 1 November 1929, identified the casts as a statuette of a woman, from Dolni Ves- tonice, identified as Aurignacian (now Pavlovian), a carving of a mammoth, and a cave bear skull with an embedded arrow point from a cave in the Moravian central hills. Wetmore sent Absolon an acknowledgment on 4 November 1929. NUMBER 48 111 Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund (ace. 112339, 116916,117631,117750,118935,121411,124072) The Smithsonian acquired seven gift accessions from 1930 to 1933 as a result of donations by J. Townsend Russell. The gifts consisted of Russell's personal collections, purchased col? lections from the Old World Archaeology Fund, and artifacts uncovered at excavations by the Franco-American Union for Prehistoric Research in France. In 1930, a cast of the Willendorf Venus from the Lower Au? rignacian (now Gravettian) was donated to the U.S. National Museum (ace. 112339) by the Landes Museum in Vienna, Aus? tria. The piece may have been sought for exhibit purposes. Russell wrote to Judd on 20 September 1930, indicating that while in Vienna he secured the cast that the U.S. National Mu? seum sought. The gift was acknowledged by Assistant Secre? tary Wetmore in a letter to Russell on 30 October. In 1931, twenty-five water color reproductions of Upper Pa? leolithic Spanish cave art and fourteen casts of Upper Pale? olithic bone art objects and implements were donated to the museum (ace. 117631) by the Old World Archaeology Fund. Russell arranged the transaction with Father [Don] Jesus Car- ballo, of the Museo Prehistorico of Santander, Spain, and au? thor of a book on the prehistory of Spain, Prehistoria Univer? sal v Especial de Espaha (1924). Members of the American School of Prehistoric Research visited Carballo and the cave site of El Pendo, in Spain (Carballo, 1931). On 6 August 1930, Russell wrote to thank Carballo for his courtesy during Rus? sell's stay in Santander, and expressed the hope that there was progress on the paintings that they discussed. On 23 September 1931, Carballo wrote to the treasurer of the U.S. National Mu? seum to inform him that the materials were sent: "As per In? struction of my good friend Mr. J. Townsend Russell I had the pleasure of sending to you some paintings and reproductions of prehistoric objects." Carballo indicated that the total expense (including payment for the artist) was 1413 ptas. The same day, Carballo wrote to Russell that "in all of this 1 won't get any benefit, I will have the pleasure of having being of some use to you." In a letter, dated 9 January 1932, Wetmore acknowledged the payment for the Carballo collection. In 1932, Russell donated his European collections (ace. 116916), mostly consisting of single specimens or a small number of pieces from various sites (Figure 79). The most thoroughly reported artifacts in the collection are those from Chambe, France (Figure 80). Russell (1928) briefly described these artifacts in an article titled "A Summer of Prehistoric Re? search in the 'Pays Civraisien'." Subsequently, some of the same objects were illustrated in an article titled Report on Field Work in France, Season of 1928 (Russell, 1929) (Figure 81). Russell described the circumstances of this transaction to Wet? more on 25 September 1931: "There is in the Museum part of my personal collection in two cases. I plan to present this to the Museum but have never done so as I wished to hold up the gift until I could get the confusion in the collections straightened out. I have just ordered a third case, that was still here in stor- FlGURE 79.?Handaxe [catalog number 363429] from Meyral, France. [Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund accession (accession 116916).] age, shipped to the Museum in my name." On 8 February 1932, Wetmore acknowledged Russell's gift. In 1932, two accessions (ace. 117750, 118935), consisting of Upper Paleolithic collections excavated in southern France un? der the direction of Russell during the 1931 season, were do? nated to the U.S. National Museum by the Old World Archaeol? ogy Fund. The collection was excavated under the auspices of the Franco-American Union for Prehistoric Research in France by the University of Toulouse and the Smithsonian Institution. The results of this fieldwork were published by Russell in "Re? port on Archaeological Research in the Foothills of the Pyrenees," Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 1932, and in La Campagne de Fouilles de 1931, by Begouen and Russell, issued by publisher Edouard Privat, Toulouse, 1933 (Figure 82). Among the collections were a variety of chipped stone arti? facts from Roquecourbere, Ariege; chipped stone artifacts, bone fragments, and breccia from Tarte, Commune of Cassagne, Haute Garonne; and chipped stone, bone fragments, ochre, shells, travertine, and a photo from Marsoulas, Commune of Marsoulas, Haute-Garonne. Among the spectacular art objects is a palette from Tarte (Figure 83) (Petraglia et al., 1992). In 1932, the museum accessioned (ace. 121411) a collection of photographs of Paleolithic cave art of Ariege and Haute Ga- 112 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 80.?Handaxes [catalog number 363413] from Chambe, France. [Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund accession (accession 116916).] ronne, France. The collection was purchased for 775 francs by the museum accessioned (ace. 124072) a collection of photo- J. Townsend Russell from Count Henri Begouen of the Univer- graphs of Paleolithic sites and of fossils obtained from origi- sity of Toulouse. The photographs consisted of the most fa- nals furnished by Hrdlicka, as well as films belonging to Rus- mous views, paintings, sculptures, and engravings from caves sell. The photographs from these two accessions were used to in the Ariege and Haute-Garonne regions of France. In 1933, develop future exhibits. Scale VA. FIGURE 81.?Drawings of two flint artifacts from Chambe, France, representing an "Early type of cleaver or handaxe resembling those found at La Micoque (Dordogne)" and considered to be of the "Mousterian Epoch" (Russell, 1928:11). [These pieces are in the NMNH collection (accession 116916). Published in Russell, 1928, Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, fig. 1.] NUMBER 48 113 i f T U . X UUMUS ljLVtL X OU.IC BtiBIMG PAUOL1THIC TEfctACt -BOCK. FALLi AXD EMTH I.EVE1.3B bl-'.B. CU< V- U v i u UVtL UJVIL I U VS. > ^' & MA&50ULA5 HAUT l - CAttONUL CUT or CAVE. TL&BACE. FIGURE 82.?Cross section of the Marsoulas excavations (Russell, 1932). Serrano y Sanz (ace. 114125) In 1931, a collection of artifacts from the Manzanares River Valley at Villaverde Bajo, Madrid, Spain, was donated to the U.S. National Museum by Manuel Serrano y Sanz, of Madrid, Spain. On 12 February, Sanz inquired whether the Staff would like to have Mousterian objects from Madrid for the National Museum. On 15 March, John E. Graf, associate director of the U.S. National Museum, responded: "I regret to advise you that we have no prehistoric objects whatever from Spain in our na? tional collections and for this reason would be particularly grateful for a small but representative series illustrating the Musteriense of Madrid. We should also be glad to receive in this connection notes describing the relationship of the species, their horizon, and any publications which may be available concerning the site or sites whence they were secured." On 2 May, Sanz indicated that he was sending objects from Villa Verde Bajo, and that the deposit was confirmed by P. Wernert and J. Perez de Barradas to be "Precapsian, synchronous with a final phase of the Acheulian." Serrano y Sanz wrote that the 5cm FIGURE 83 (left).?"Artist's Palette" [catalog number 363247] from Tarte, France. [Russell and Old World Archaeology Fund accession (accession 117750).J 114 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY prehistory of the Manzanares Valley was published in various monographs by the Committee of Excavations in Madrid. In a drawing of the site stratigraphy supplied by Serrano y Sanz, the sequence was shown to consist of three strata; the artifacts were found in the lower part of the white sand at a depth of two to six meters. Graf acknowledged the gift in a letter dated 2 June 1931. Begouen (ace. 117494) In 1931, casts of engravings of animals and of footprint and fingerprint impressions taken from caves were donated to the U.S. National Museum by the Count Henri Begouen, Professor of Prehistory, University of Toulouse, France. Although the material was purchased by Russell during his explorations with Begouen in the Pyrenees, the accession was recorded as a gift from Begouen. Begouen and H. Vallois described the casts in "Les Empreintes Prehistoriques," which was published in Comptes Rendus, in 1927. Graf acknowledged the receipt of the collection on 24 December 1931. Abbott (ace. 124660,128495,134685,140811,150229) Wilfred C. Abbott, of the Standard Bank of South Africa, do? nated archaeological collections to the U.S. National Museum in five separate accessions from 1933 to 1938 . The first acces? sion (ace. 124660) was received during Abbott's visit to the museum in 1933. It consisted of a small collection made at Tanbryn Farm, District of Bainsvlei, near Bloemfontein, South Africa. The artifacts were found on a hard bed of shallow pans in the veld during 1931 and 1932. On 10 June 1933, L.L. Wed? lock, J. Townsend Russell's temporary assistant, wrote to Ab? bott after the visit, stating: "I enjoyed very much indeed your visit to Washington and feel the hours spent with you were among those which I have enjoyed most during my brief career as an archeologist. Mr. Judd joins me in thanking you for your kind disposition toward the Museum and we both appreciate very much your efforts in assisting us toward the acquisition of more complete collections from South Africa. We wish these to be as educationally useful as possible." Nine months later Assistant Secretary Wetmore wrote to Ab? bott, on 5 March 1934, indicating that additional materials from South Africa were wanted: "The stone implements which you forwarded about a year ago were of much interest and a most desirable addition to our meager prehistoric exhibit from South Africa. We should be pleased indeed to add any addi? tional specimens which you may care to forward." Soon after, Abbott sent materials from two localities as part of a second ac? cession (ace. 128495). Abbott noted that, although the artifacts were probably Paleolithic, they were of uncertain age. The third accession (ace. 134685) of South African material was received in 1935, during Abbott's second visit to the U.S. National Museum. On 27 May 1935, Judd wrote to Abbott to express his appreciation for the collection: "Before your depar? ture from New York, Doctor Wetmore will formally acknowl? edge the specimens you so generously brought with you for our modest African collection. If I could make you believe how thoroughly welcome these artifacts are, I am sure you would be amply rewarded for all the trouble you went to in collecting them and bringing them over in person." Wetmore acknowl? edged the gift on 28 May 1935. Abbott replied on 6 June: "You are more than welcome to the few artifacts I was able to bring over. I was only sorry I was not able, before leaving Cape Town, to get at my full collection, as I have many duplicates from other areas & of different cultures & could have left you a more varied selection." In 1936, Abbott sent another small col? lection of artifacts (ace. 140811) from three localities near Ca? petown. In a letter dated 1 July 1936, Wetmore thanked Abbott for his "continued and generous interest" in donating material. The final accession (ace. 150229) of South African material was received in 1938. In a letter to Judd, dated 6 February 1938, Abbott described camping in the "Witsands," or the white sand dunes of Criqualand West, Cape Province, on the border of the Kalahari Desert, and at the foot of the Langeberg Hills. Abbott indicated that microliths were found in several ar? eas in the dunes, and in one area in particular, "Mousterian" ar? tifacts were found. "Towards the end of our stay we found a site somewhat further from our camp, and on lower ground where we picked up a number of Mousterian implements, some of them quite large and these will be included in the parcel go? ing on later." Judd responded on 25 April, expressing apprecia? tion for the parcel: From your photographs and description I can readily imagine what a delightful time you had camping at the foot of Langeberg and searching the nearby sand dunes. Your description of the Witsand country reminds me very much of our own western Texas and southern New Mexico where I have enjoyed experi? ences very similar to yours. It adds much to the adventure when drinking water is distinctly at a premium; where casual pools must be shared with cattle and goats. With you as guide, it would be a pleasure to lead a Smithsonian expedi? tion into the Witsand region and rugged ravines of Langeberg. But I am quite certain the possibility of such a jaunt is too remote for consideration. We must leave to you the satisfaction of searching out the rock shelters to be explored there. On 23 August 1938, Abbott provided information on his finds and sent newspaper clippings about which he opined: "These archaeologists seem to be on the track of some startling discoveries, though I don't hold with the theory of a 'missing link.' If one accepts that life, human life, was created & not evolved. I can't understand why scientists want to establish that man, in the marvelous perfection as we know him, evolved from an ape & was not created by a beautiful being." Anticipat? ing the disruptions that would soon occur in the exchange of objects, Judd wrote to Abbott on 24 September 1938: "Radio and daily press are bringing echoes of the unhappy state of af? fairs in Europe. It is most disheartening and discouraging. Ev? ery individual in the United States, I am sure, is today praying that war may be avoided. But how to stop a madman without war?" On 23 December 1938, John E. Graf, associate director of the U.S. National Museum, acknowledged the gift. NUMBER 48 115 Leach (ace. 134860,134861) In 1935, two accessions from the Thames River valley were donated to the U.S. National Museum by A.L. Leach, of Wool- rich, England, through Miss Mary S. Johnston. The materials were donated after Johnston attended a Geological Congress in Washington, D.C. On 7 October 1934, Johnson wrote to Judd: "I noticed when I was wandering round your archaeological galleries, with your Dr. Collins, that you had not many British examples. I am not a good archaeologist, myself tho' I am very interested, I was talking to my great friend Mr. Leach and asked him to tell me how I could get a small series to send you and he said he was sure, he and his colleague, Mr. Chandler could get together some specimens, worth sending, and prop? erly named. So in a short time, you will receive 3 small parcels, containing the results of this colloquy. I hope you will be pleased and find them interesting." The first accession of material was soon received and con? sisted mostly of bifacial pieces from Swanscombe, England (Figure 84). Judd replied to Johnson on 31 October 1934: "As an archeologist, 1 was quite overjoyed upon receipt of the fine series of paleoliths contributed, through you by Messrs. Leach and Chandler. It is extremely thoughtful, and generous, of you to have come in this way to the aid of our modest collection from England. The specimens arrived duly and will prove a most welcome addition to our archeological hall. Naturally, we wish our European exhibits to be as representative as possible." In a memorandum to Hough, on 7 June 1935, Judd stated that two lots of fine Paleolithic implements were received, noting that materials from the famous site of Swanscombe were well documented in the literature. Assistant Secretary Wetmore wrote to Leach on 10 June to express appreciation for the col? lection: "Together with those received at the same time from Mr. R.H. Chandler, the implements provide a most acceptable exhibit?one that clearly illustrates the comparative youth of certain North American artifacts which were formerly assigned to the Paleolithic horizon." Judd wrote a second letter to Johnston on 12 July: "Your confidence in the high quality of ar? cheological researches pursued by British amateurs is thor? oughly justified. While European prehistory is not among my major interests I fully appreciate the merit of those contributions which have come to my attention. Among these, the papers by Mr. Chandler impress me most favorably." In a letter dated 15 July, Leach replied to Wetmore that both he and Mr. Chandler were pleased to send the Thames Valley specimens. Leach en? closed a copy of a report entitled, "The Clactonian Industry and Report of a Field Meeting at Swanscombe (III)" by R.H. Chan? dler, published in the Proceedings of the Geologists' Associa- FlGURE 84.-Handaxes [catalog numbers 373462, 373843, 373457, 373840, 373841, left to right] from Swanscombe, England. [Leach accessions (accessions 134860, 134861).] 116 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY -?.~ 5cm FIGURE 85.?Handaxes (left and middle) [catalog number 377982] and discoid (right) [catalog number 377981] from Klippies Pan, South Africa. [McGregor Museum accession (accession 141245).] tion (46:43^45) with the letter. He also provided a summation of the context of the finds in relation to two published plates: It has occurred to Mr. Chandler and myself that some illustrations of the gravels in which these implements are found may be of some interest in relation to the specimens from Swanscombe. To illustrate the brief report of one of our Field Meetings (Geologists' Association) I took two photographs which show (1) the gravel in a section transverse to the original bed of the channel i.e. showing the base rising on the side of the valley (2) a front-face view of the gravel. I have pencilled on the rough plan the two positions of the camera. By the aid of these views and the side notes you will I think have no difficulty in understanding the conditions of the site. The Woodrich and Reading Beds and the Thanet Sand are our lowest Eocene. These High Terrace gravels lie in a channel cut in Thanet Sand down to and sometimes even below its base so that the gravel in places, in other pits at Swanscombe, rest directly on the Chalk all the Thanet Sand having been eroded completely away before the gravel deposit began to be laid down. The lowest part of the base of this gravel formerly called High, or 100 ft, (be? cause approximately 100 feet above Ordnance datum Terrace)?not often cor? related with the Boyn Hill Terrace of the Thames valley several miles above London, lies about 95 O.D. to 100 O.D. and it rises (as Plate 3 Fig. A was spe? cially taken to show) to about 120 O.D. The rough sketch shows the relation of the gravels (two terraces) to the Chalk and Eocene formations before the side of the valleys were altered by the enormous workings for gravel and for Chalk workings so great that vast areas of the gravels have been entirely destroyed. We hope these illustrations of the Barnfield Pit (called 'Milton Street pit' in old accounts of this district) will be of some service. Rixon's Farm pit is in the same High Terrace gravel, Vi mile or so from Barnfield pit: there the gravel rests on the Chalk. Mr. Chandler has been able to spare three copies of the re? port and on his behalf I have much pleasure in forwarding them to you. In a letter dated 2 August 1935, Wetmore acknowledged Leach's letter and requested photographs of the two views re? produced as plate 3 in Chandler's paper. On 19 September, Leach sent the two photographs. McGregor Museum (ace. 141245) In 1936, an exchange was made with the McGregor Memo? rial Museum, in Kimberley, South Africa, for a collection of stone implements from various localities in Cape Province, South Africa. The accession was arranged by Miss M. Wilman, director of the museum, and was assisted by W.C. Abbott, who had previously provided other South African artifacts to the Smithsonian. In a letter of 14 February 1923, Wilman wrote to thank Hough for the Native American artifacts. In return, Wil? man offered and sent "Paleolithic implements," "perforated stones," and "Bushman implements." Among the Paleolithic artifacts were those of Klippies Pan (Figure 85). In a letter to Wilman dated 24 October 1936, Associate Director Graf ac? knowledged the receipt of the collection. Swan (ace. 150659) In 1938, a collection of stone implements from South Africa was donated to the U.S. National Museum by James Swan, of Kimberley, South Africa, through W.C. Abbott, who had previ? ously acted as a liaison for other accessions. The accession file contains no correspondence from Swan. The only information available is a letter of 23 August 1938, in which Abbott men? tioned to Judd that Swan would send the material. Graf ac? knowledged the gift in a letter dated 23 December. Franssen (ace. 159728) In 1941, an exchange was made with Dr. C. Franssen for a collection of archaeological material from Java. In a letter of 30 September 1940, Franssen proposed the exchange: "I have done considerable original research work in West Java, and have been fortunate in collecting numbers of entirely new spec? imens, most of which have as yet not been published. I also have a number of the palaeolithic specimens as published by [G.H.R.] von Koenigswald in the Bulletin of Raffles Museum, Singapore (Serie B no 1 pp. 25-60, 1936)." Associate Director NUMBER 48 117 FIGURE 86.?Worked stone [catalog numbers 383075 (left), 383076 (right)] from Patjitan, Java. [Franssen accession (accession 159728).] John E. Graf, replied to Franssen on 6 November 1940, ex? pressing interest in receiving Paleolithic collections as those described by von Koeningswald. On 13 January 1941, Frans? sen sent a variety of material from Java, including material identified as Paleolithic from the site of Patjitan (Figure 86). In exchange, the Smithsonian sent Franssen collections from Mid? dle and South America. Reeves (ace. 170049) In 1945, artifacts from England were donated to the U.S. Na? tional Museum by Colonel Dache M. Reeves, of Alexandria, Virginia. A memorandum indicates that the artifacts had been given to Reeves during "his 1944 sojourn in England." The ar? tifacts consisted of a Chellean handaxe from an unknown pro? venience and a Chellean handaxe marked "Woodgreen" (Mid? dlesex or Berkshire). Associate Director Graf sent a letter of acknowledgment on 19 April 1945. Bruce Hughes Fund (ace. 177782) In 1952, a collection from Jordan was donated to the mu? seum by the Bruce Hughes Fund of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. The accession was acquired from a well-known Biblical archaeologist, Dr. Nelson Glueck, at Hebrew Union College. The materials were collected by the American Schools of Ori? ental Research, during a surface survey led by Glueck. On 31 December 1946, Glueck informed Secretary Wetmore that a shipment had been sent. Smithsonian anthropologist Frank Set- zler wrote to Glueck on 3 October 1947, indicating that the col? lection had been received. On 15 October, Glueck responded that provenience information would be provided during his personal visit to the National Museum and with the publication of his forthcoming book, Explorations in Eastern Palestine. Glueck visited the museum in April of 1949, as indicated in a letter from director Remington Kellogg, dated 15 April 1949. Glueck wrote to Wetmore on 3 April 1951 to inform Wetmore that he was sending the monograph: "These two volumes will demonstrate to you, I trust, that I have tried to follow your ex? ample and continue my scientific work despite administrative obligations." Wetmore replied on 12 April, acknowledging the publication, adding: "I compliment you definitely on your ac? complishment in the production of this valuable work in the midst of your administrative responsibilities. It is an outstand? ing contribution and one that will have permanent value." Glueck (1951) described the Jordanian collections in his Explo? rations in Eastern Palestine. Wymer (ace. 197463) In 1953, a collection of implements from England was do? nated to the U.S. National Museum by Bertram O. Wymer of England. In a letter to W. Wedel, a curator in Anthropology, on 8 December 1952, Wymer indicated the provenience of the ar? tifacts: "I am enclosing a diagramatic section of the Drift gravel from which the Boyn Hill, Maidenhead palaeolithic im? plements was excavated [100 foot terrace of the Thames]. The Clactonian flake implements from Grays Thurrock, are from the Thames Lower gravel of Boyn Hill age [75 foot terrace]. The Warren Hill, Icklingham Acheulian ovate is from the grav? els of the River Lark." Director Kellogg sent a formal letter of acknowledgment to Wymer on 11 March 1953. Vass (ace. 197993) In 1953, a collection of artifacts from the Lulua River, Kasai District, Belgian Congo, was donated to the U.S. National Mu? seum by Mrs. Lachlan C. Vass, Jr., of the American Presbyte? rian Congo Mission, Luebo. In a letter dated 29 November 1952, Vass described how the artifacts had been discovered: My husband and I are missionaries of the Presbyterian Church in the Belgian Congo. As a hobby I have collected prehistoric stone implements which I have found on the banks of the Lulua river in the Kasai district. I have Chellean and Solutrean axe heads, spear heads, throwing stones and knives. It is a very small collection, only about twenty pieces, but if you are interested in them, I'll be glad to send them to you. The colonial government was installing a big cement ramp as an approach to the ferry for the cars. These pieces are the best of those I found where the river bank excavations were made, anywhere from two to ten feet under the surface. Setzler replied on 14 December 1952: "Since our African ar? cheological materials are very limited in scope and quantity, we are always interested in the possibility of expanding them with specimens that will be suitable for exhibit purposes and scientific interest." Director Kellogg acknowledged the gift on 28 April 1953. Bordes (ace. 213032) In 1956, a collection of archaeological and experimental flint artifacts was donated to the U.S. National Museum by Dr. Francois Bordes of the University of Bordeaux, France, through Dr. Ralph Solecki, who was a curator at the U.S. Na- 118 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 87.?Francois Bordes replicating stone-tool manufacture. [Photograph taken by Ralph Solecki. Solecki collection, National Anthropological Archives (MS 7091), NMNH (no. 94-11096).] tional Museum. The Paleolithic specimens consisted of objects collected by Solecki from the Dordogne. Bordes was a leader in lithic typological studies and was one of the few scientists of the time capable of replicating Pale? olithic tools (Figure 87). The collection produced by Bordes consisted of 34 flint tools plus an 8-inch hammer stick of box? wood that was used to make the tools. On 8 September 1956, Solecki wrote to Setzler, indicating the circumstances of his ac? cession of the material: "We have been in the Dordogne area for about two weeks, studying the classic palaeolithic sites and collections, as well as helping Bordes excavate his Mousterian site of Combe Grenelle. All this experience is a wonderful background for Shanidar because all the literature refers to the classic French sites in palaeolithic studies, and it is good to be on familiar terms with the stuff." Solecki indicated how the ex? perimental materials were produced: "I watched Bordes make the flints. He used a simple stone pebble and a piece of box? wood as his tools, scaling the flakes off by percussion only. The method is very effective, and the flints are the exact dupli? cates of the authentic things. It will make a good study collec? tion." Solecki also noted that Bordes was one of the few people who could make a Levallois flake. Solecki photographed Bor? des during his experimental work, noting that the specimens were manufactured at Bordes summer home in Carsac (Dor? dogne). The experimental objects consisted of burins, hand- axes, a hammerstone, points, backed blades, scrapers, Levallois flakes, Levallois cores and associated flakes, and an exhausted core on a flake. Director Remington Kellogg acknowledged the gift on 13 December 1956. Paige (ace. 214613) In 1957, a collection of Paleolithic artifacts from an estate near Tongres, Province of Limburg, Belgium, was donated to the U.S. National Museum by Mr. Jason Paige, Jr., of Virginia. In a letter to Setzler, dated 17 February 1957, Paige described the circumstances of his acquisition of the collection and their provenience: The tools were obtained from an antiquities dealer in Brussels, M. Jean With- ofs, 10 rue Ernest Allard. He stated that he had received them from an estate near Tongres, in the province of Limbourg, Belgium. They were described as surface finds which had been picked up over a period of time on the estate. While I was at the University Museum in Philadelphia last spring I had an op? portunity to show the whole collection of tools to John d'A. Waechter of the British Museum who was spending some time at the Peabody Museum in Bos? ton on a project for Dr. Movius. Waechter, whom Carleton Coon considers one of the very best on flint tools, stated that the Belgium tools were of a type with which he was familiar, and that they were contemporary with the Thames Pick Industry in England. It is my understanding that they would be of the Me? solithic period for that particular area. According to Waechter, one large flake might be a Levallois Flake tool, but he could not tell by examining it out of context. NUMBER 48 119 Director Kellogg acknowledged the gift in a letter dated 26 May 1957. Solecki (ace. 217009) In 1957, a collection of Paleolithic artifacts from Ras Beirut, Lebanon, was collected for the Smithsonian Institution by Dr. Ralph Solecki, a curator at the U.S. National Museum. The col? lection consisted of Lower to Middle Paleolithic materials ob? tained from the surface of the ground at Ras Beirut. The collec? tion was brought to the Smithsonian by Solecki; consequently, there is no correspondence associated with the acquisition. Iraq Museum (ace. 220078) In 1958, collections from Shanidar Cave and Zawi Chemi Shanidar were donated to the U.S. National Museum by the Di? rectorate General of Antiquities, Iraq Museum, through Dr. Naji al Asil of the Iraq Museum and the Bruce Hughes Fund of the Smithsonian Institution (Figure 88). Shanidar was discov? ered in 1951 during survey work conducted by Dr. Ralph Solecki (Trinkaus, 1983, 1997; Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). Excavations were conducted in 1951, 1953, 1956-1957, and 1960 but eventually were terminated because of political ten? sions in the region. Fourteen meters of stratified deposits were excavated. Solecki established that layers D through A repre? sented Middle Paleolithic, early Upper Paleolithic (Barados- tian), Mesolithic and proto-Neolithic and Neolithic to modern periods, respectively (Figure 89). The recovered artifacts were divided among several institutions. On 1 January 1958, Naji al Asil wrote to Smithsonian curator T.D. Stewart concerning casts of Shanidar I, a Neanderthal skeleton: Now that your very useful stay in Iraq has approached its end, we would like to thank you for the delicate and exact work you have done in the restoration of the human skeletons, which formed the most important part of the latest dis? covery at Shanidar Cave. We are grateful to you also for your examination and study of these remarkable remains, and the reports which you have been pre? paring for publication in Sumer. It gives us pleasure to present you with a plas? ter cast of the skull and skeletal remains of the adult man from Shanidar Cave for the Smithsonian Institution. FIGURE 88.?Photograph of T. Dale Stewart meeting with Dr. Naji al Asid from Baghdad, in January 1959. [Solecki collection, National Anthropological Archives (MS 7091), NMNH (number 94-11100).] 120 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 0W4 - WEST EAST 00 BLACK To " " " " ????iii>iiin)niillinnnilltnir.O?-0A TUM LAYER A 'LAYER B FLAYER C FIGURE 89.?Cross section of Shanidar excavations, on line 00-0W4 (north face, upper half section) showing complex stratigraphy and charcoal concentrations for radiocarbon dating. [Solecki collection, National Anthro? pological Archives (MS 7091), NMNH.] On 21 January 1958, Secretary Carmichael replied to al Asil, citing the importance of the Neanderthal finds and the joint re? search with the Iraq Museum: I am indeed happy to know that Dr. Stewart completed his assignment to your satisfaction. Although I have not seen him yet, Dr. Stewart returned to his of? fice on the 13th, having hand carried all the way from Baghdad the precious cast of the Shanidar I skull. His return at this time enabled us to exhibit the cast at the annual meeting of the Smithsonian Regents which included Chief Justice Warren and members of the United States Congress. Not only was there gen? eral interest in this new example of Neanderthal man but in the fact that the Smithsonian has been collaborating with the Iraq Government in anthropologi? cal research. Assistant Secretary Kellogg wrote to al Asil on 15 May 1958. He indicated that the Shanidar I casts had been acces? sioned as a gift, and he remarked upon the importance of the casts: "I am aware of the uniqueness of these casts and there? fore am especially grateful to you for this splendid gift. Dr. Stewart exhibited the cast of the skull on 11 April at a public lecture he gave at Harvard University in connection with the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical An? thropologists. He tells me that it was very favorably com? mented upon." Additional remains of Neanderthals were found in the Middle Paleolithic levels (Figure 90). These were sent to T.D. Stewart in 1957 for analysis. Ralph Solecki of the U.S. National Mu? seum took extensive soil samples from the site and carefully re? corded the relationship between animal bones, Neanderthal skeletal material, and rocks (e.g., Figure 91). An analysis con? ducted by Arlette Leroi-Gourham on soil samples associated with one skeleton (Shanidar 4) yielded wildflower pollen, sug? gesting this had been an intentional burial on the part of Nean? derthals. This theory was popularized in the book Shanidar, the First Flower People (Solecki, 1971). Stewart was responsible NUMBER 48 121 FIGURE 90.?The photograph is labeled, "Ralph Solecki (left) and Kurdish woman excavating skeleton of a child found in Mousterian deposits at depth of 26 feet in Shanidar Cave, Zagros Mountains, Valley of the Great Zab River, northern Iraq, June 22, 1953." [Solecki collection, National Anthropological Archives (MS 7091), NMNH.] for skeletal restorations, and he conducted much of this work in Baghdad. A summary of the results of his work was published in his compendium of 1977 (Stewart, 1977). The remaining re? constructions were later accomplished and fully described by Erik Trinkaus (1983). The Shanidar collection originally consisted of only a set of casts of the Shanidar I Neanderthal skeleton, but it was soon expanded to include multiple casts of the reconstructed speci? mens prepared by Stewart. In 1960, 8770 archaeological speci? mens from Shanidar Cave and Zawi Chemi Shanidar were added temporarily to the collection. The Smithsonian collec? tions consisted of partial assemblages from the Mousterian through the Neolithic, with the main Paleolithic specimens consisting of early Upper Paleolithic Baradostian artifacts (Fig? ure 92). A number of sediment samples in this collection may be useful for dating and palynological analysis. The Shanidar accession records include archival data from the National Anthropological Archives (Manuscript 7091). The manuscript file contains standard field notes, drawings, and photographs dating from 1953 to 1959. Data cards concerning finds made by the Third Shanidar Expedition have been kept with the collection. The cards include detailed records of the discovery of three Neanderthal skeletons in Mousterian con? texts, as well as descriptions, notes, and sketches of artifacts, mollusks, faunal remains, soil, pollen, and charcoal samples. The photographic prints, negatives, and slides depict the speci? mens, the excavations, and aspects of travel by team members. Although the field notes describe the excavation prove? niences, detailed information about the artifacts is lacking, and the material collections have never been published in detail. A portion of the faunal remains from the site was loaned to the University of Chicago as part of the multidisciplinary study. On 2 January 1958, Solecki wrote to Dr. Charles Reed of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, stating that three cases containing 7500 animal bones were being sent on loan for study through Dr. Robert J. Braidwood: "The cases contain 13 boxes of bones of archeological importance as noted on the itemized list enclosed with this letter. Also enclosed are the 122 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY NORTH WALL OF EXCAVATION CRUMBLING BONE A I RODENT FEMUR HJ/AI! /TS" " ANIMAL TEETH \ FIGURE 91 (above).?Drawing of animal bones found on stones lying over Neanderthal skeleton number 1 in Shanidar Cave, and showing areas of soil samples for botanical analysis. [Solecki collection, National Anthro? pological Archives (MS 7091), NMNH.] FIGURE 92 (left).?(a,b) Carinated burins [catalog num? bers 425890, 425885, left to right], (c) Baradostian burin [catalog number 425891], and (d,e) cores [catalog num? bers 425890, 425805, left to right] from Shanidar Cave, Iraq. [Iraq Museum accession (accession 220078).] 2cm Zl NUMBER 48 123 0 2cm -r^ FIGURE 93.?Bifaces [catalog numbers 443862, 443869, 443869, left to right] from Nsongezi, Uganda. [Uganda Museum accession (accession 259009).] catalog number lists pertaining to the bones from both the Shanidar Cave and Zawi Chemi Shanidar sites, from which the bones were recovered. Included are seven pages of itemization from Layers A to D from Shanidar Cave, and three pages of itemization from Layers A and B from Zawi Chemi Shanidar." In 1975, bird bones from Zawi Chemi Shanidar were "indefi? nitely loaned" to Solecki, who was then affiliated with Colum? bia University. Government Museum, Madras (ace. 202973) In 1959, an exchange of ethnographic materials and two Pa? leolithic artifacts was arranged by Dr. S.T. Satyamurti, assis? tant superintendent of the Madras Government Museum, Ma? dras State, India. In a letter dated 10 June 1954, superintendent CJ. Jayadev inquired about the possibility of an exchange, and on 17 August 1954, Setzler accepted the proposal. On 10 June 1955, Dr. A. Aiyappan, the current superintendent, wrote to Setzler and offered Paleolithic stone implements from southern India of the Madras fades in exchange for North and South American ethnographic materials. In a letter to Aiyappan, dated 20 September 1955, Setzler suggested a preliminary ex? change, noting that if the transaction was "mutually satisfac? tory" to both sides, "a more comprehensive exchange might later be arranged of materials from the duplicate reserve collec? tions of our respective museums." Included in the Paleolithic material sent to the Smithsonian was one cleaver from Attiram- pakkam and one chopper from Manjanakaranai, both of the Ch- ingleput District, Madras State. Apparently no other exchanges were made. Jones (ace. 249458) In 1963, a collection of four stone tools, including one Pale? olithic handaxe, from Temenhent in Fezan Province, Libya, was received as a gift from James R. Jones, a groundwater ge? ologist for the United States Aid Mission to Libya. The objects were brought personally to the Smithsonian by Jones, who stated that the site was on low ground, possibly in an old lake bed. He noted that the zone stretched in a westerly direction for several kilometers, and that artifacts were recovered in blown out areas. The artifacts had been sand-blasted and were found in an area eight feet in diameter, which contained 20 artifacts of the same type. On 14 January 1964, Stewart expressed ap? preciation for the gift, noting: "Our holdings of Libyan materi? als are few indeed, and your donation constitutes a significant contribution to the national collections." Uganda Museum (ace. 259009) In 1965, Paleolithic material from two sites (Nsongezi and Magosi) in Uganda was donated to the NMNH by the Board of Trustees of the Uganda Museum, through Dr. Glen H. Cole, one of the excavators of the sites. The Nsongezi collection con? sisted of hundreds of artifacts excavated by Cole (later of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago) in 1962 and 1964, following the work of van Riet Lowe (1952) (Figure 93). Magosi is a type site (Wayland and Burkitt, 1932) where arti? fact assemblages have been found in rock shelters formed in a granitic inselberg (Posansky and Cole, 1963). At the Magosi site, trench excavations uncovered large numbers of artifacts, indicating the presence of Late Stone Age assemblages. The excavations were useful in clarifying stratigraphy and material sequences. The donated Magosi assemblage consisted of hun- 124 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY dreds of Late Stone Age artifacts excavated in 1963 from "Trench a/b." On 4 January 1964, Cole wrote to Dr. Gus Van Beek, a cura? tor of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History (USNM), providing information on the collection: The main bulk of the stuff is Acheulian from the Nsongezi?N Horizon. It is mostly from a single excavation (labeled Cl-S). This is a good representative collection and, in fact, apart from waste material, is not very much selected. All implements, a goodly selection of cores and virtually all non-waste flakes are included. A little of the waste material, other than cores, is also included. I would mention that some of the flakes and even some of the tools are quite small so unpack with care. Another small bag was put in the final crate to take up space when I ran out of Cl-S material. This is some surface stuff from Nsongezi which I had not yet had a chance to examine. On packing it I noted that it is a fairly good assort? ment of some of the late MSA from the area. There are also some miscella? neous specimens from the M-N Horizon in various places which will provide some good examples of certain tool types which may not be included in the Cl- S collection. Cole's references to the M-H Horizon were based upon the earlier work of Van Riet Lowe (1952), who had described the geology and the Acheulean assemblages. In the same letter, Cole indicated that material from Magosi also was included in the shipment: "There is also a bag of material from Magosi. I didn't have time to sort through this so this will be largely waste material but there should be a good assortment of flakes, blades, miscellaneous tools and a few microlifhs." Clifford Evans, a curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History, acknowledged the gift on 26 February 1965. Hole (ace. 265162) In 1966, Paleolithic collections from Kunji Cave and Gar Ar- jeneh Rockshelter, Khorramabad Valley, Luristan Province, Iran, were donated to the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) by Dr. Frank A. Hole of Rice University, through Kent V Flannery of the NMNH, Smithsonian Institution. Hole and Flannery jointly excavated the cave and rockshelter sites during July and August of 1963. According to the them, the Kunji Cave tools are Mousterian and have two radiocarbon dates older than 40,000 years that were based upon associated charcoal. Gar Arjeneh Rockshelter had Mousterian material at the bottom of the deposits, overlain by Upper Paleolithic "Baradostian" material at the top of the deposit, surmised to date to ca. 25,000 B.C. (Hole and Flannery, 1967). Notes indi? cate that the stratigraphy had been badly disturbed by intrusive porcupine burrows; thus, tools were cataloged by type and not by stratigraphic level (Figure 94). India ink markings on ob? jects, other than catalog numbers, indicate grid square and depth. Citron (ace. 268093) In 1966, surface archaeological material from Sabata and Melka Kontoure, near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was donated to the National Museum of Natural History by Mr. Robert Citron, of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observation Station, Addis Ababa. Sabata is 24 kilometers southwest of Addis Ababa, and Melka Kontoure is 51 kilometers south-southwest of Addis Ababa, on the Awash River. On 9 February 1966, Gus Van Beek, a curator at the museum, wrote to Citron, apparently in response to a query from Citron about the need for archaeolog? ical collections from Ethiopia. Materials were sought by Van Beek: "As you can imagine, I am much interested in building up our study and research collections in Ethiopia. What we need are well documented, representative collections of surface material from prehistoric as well as historic sites. From a pre? historic site for example, we would like to have a representa? tive sample of various tool types, cores, and waste flakes as well as precise location, description and size of site, and photo? graphs and possibly drawings of the site." In a letter dated 15 February 1966, Citron informed Van Beek that he had sent a parcel containing 50 to 60 tools, mainly from Sabata, with a few from Melka Kontoure: "I've sent representative samples of points, blades, scrapers, flakes, and possible microliths. All of the material, except one possible handaxe, is obsidian. All, ex? cept four blades that I picked up near Melka Kontour' [sic], come from the Sabata site." Citron also enclosed a series of photographs of some of the tools and of the site, as well as drawings showing the location and layout of the site and full- scale drawings of about 30 tools. "Let me say that I am not a professional archaeologist, but I'm keenly interested in prehis? toric archaeology, particularly as it relates to the emergence of man in Africa. Ethiopia is virgin territory for prehistoric ar? chaeology and there is the exciting possibility of finding a con? nection between the Olduvai hominids and similar man-apes that may have lived in this area." In a letter to Citron, dated 13 April 1966, Van Beek stated that it was a pleasure to receive well-documented material from Sabata and Melka Kontoure, suggesting that descriptions of the site and the artifacts should be published. Richard Woodbury, chairman of the Department of Anthropology, NMNH, acknowledged the gift on 9 August 1966. Shiner (ace. 278180) In 1968, a handaxe was donated to the NMNH by Dr. Joel Shiner, an archaeologists at Southern Methodist University. The handaxe was found at Khashm el Girba in the Sudan, on the Atbara River near Kasala. While visiting the museum, Shiner viewed the exhibit "Man's Earliest Weapons." He no? ticed that the exhibit lacked an example of his specimen, and citing the need for better continuity, he donated it to the De? partment of Armed Forces History. The gift was acknowl? edged, in a letter dated 26 April 1968, by M.L. Peterson, chair? man of the Department of Armed Forces History, Smithsonian Institution. NUMBER 48 125 2cm FIGURE 94.?Points (top row) [catalog number 448205], scrapers (middle row) [catalog number 448201], and side scrapers (bottom row) [catalog number 448200] from Gar Arjeneh, Iran. [Hole accession (accession 265162).] Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (ace. 295641) In 1971, a plaster cast of the "Woman of Lespugue" was do? nated to the NMNH by the Museum National d'Histoire Na? turelle, Paris, France to Secretary S. Dillon Ripley. The cast was made from the original Gravettian "Venus" figurine dis? covered at the site of Lespugue, Haute-Garonne, France. Gibson (ace. 307731) In 1973, a collection of Paleolithic material from Angola was donated to the NMNH by Dr. Gordon D. Gibson of the Na? tional Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The site of Munhino is located in the Distrito de Huila, on land owned by the Missao Catolica do Munhino. The materials were collected from the surface of the ground, and from among rock piles, which had been made when the fields were cleared. Barbour (ace. 305126) In 1973, geological and cultural objects and field records from 126 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY ? ~ * \ & - * * & '??'- ' " ' ? ? " ' * r " * ? ' ' 2cm FIGURE 95.?Breccia [catalog number 383415] from Choukoutien, China. [Barbour accession (accession 305126).] China were donated to the National Museum of Natural History by Mrs. Dorothy Barbour and Dr. George Barbour. In a letter to Eugene I. Knez, curator of Asian Anthropology at the Museum, dated 28 July 1972, Mrs. Barbour inquired whether the museum was interested in acquiring material from China. The collection was obtained by George Barbour during his 14 years at Yen- ching University, Peking, and during four months of field work conducted every year at Choukoutien during the 1920s and 1930s in connection with dating the site of Peking Man. The collection consisted of geological specimens, human pa? leontological casts, a piece of breccia from Choukoutien, books, correspondence, and field notes. Mrs. Barbour de? scribed the contents of the collection to Knez in her letter of 14 September 1972, stating that it included a portfolio containing Dr. Barbour's best sketches, diagrams, and maps of Choukou? tien, as well as documentation regarding the "thousands of miles on foot required in trying to make certain the age of the cave and of its fauna." Knez replied on 25 October, indicating that the Peking Man skeletal remains were shown to "T. Dale Stewart, our senior physical anthropologist, who found them of research value and worthy of acceptance. He did compare them with other casts of Peking Man that are here and thought that all were made under the supervision of Prof. Davidson Black by the same English firm, R.F. Damon and Company." The hu? man skeletal remains included a bronze replica of a Sinanthro- pus tooth, which had been made in honor of a celebration ban? quet of the Peking Society of Natural History, where the discovery of the first Sinanthropus tooth was initially an? nounced by Davidson Black. The collection also included casts of three skull fragments and a tooth from Locus E of Chou? koutien. (This first series of casts became valuable because the original skeletal remains were destroyed during World War II.) Knez indicated that the geological material was of little value, although the field journals were considered important, so they were retained. The materials the museum did not want, includ? ing book duplicates and geological specimens, were shipped to Dr. Hodgkins of the Geography Department of Kent State Uni? versity, in accordance with the wishes of Mrs. Barbour. The piece retained by the Smithsonian was a fragment of cave breccia from the Choukoutien excavation (Figure 95). The breccia was collected 80 feet below ground surface by George Barbour in 1931. His notes indicate that "careful inspection may distinguish (1) rockfall from the limestone roof, (2) crude vein-quartz artifact brought into the cave by human agency, [and] (3) broken bone with grey surface calcine discoloration indicating use of fire (red-brown ferruginous matrix fills inter? stices)." On 1 May 1973, the gift was acknowledged by Clif? ford Evans, chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the NMNH. Lightner (ace. 316299) In 1975, a Paleolithic collection from Sebha, Libya, was do? nated to the National Museum of Natural History by Mr. E. Lightner, Jr., of Belfast, Maine. The Acheulian handaxes were collected in 1964 from the surface of the ground in a small sandy area (Figure 96). No flakes or chips were recovered, and no stone source was identified. The gift was acknowledged by William Fitzhugh, chairman of the Department of Anthropol? ogy, in a letter dated 13 March 1975. Klima (ace. 322222) In 1976, plaster casts of Paleolithic objects from the site of Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia, were donated to the museum by Professor Bohuslav Klima of Brno, Czechoslovakia. The original objects had been excavated by the donor. On 24 May 1976, William Fitzhugh, chairman of the Department of An? thropology, wrote a letter of acknowledgment to Klima. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleo? anthropology (ace. 323176) In 1976, a small collection of artifacts from Dingcun, Shanxi, China, was donated to the National Museum of Natural History by the People's Republic of China. The gift was re? ceived through Mr. Chang Li-pin of the Revolutionary Com? mittee of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoan? thropology (IVPP) of the Academia Sinica in Peking (Beijing) (Figure 97). This was one of many gifts (including two pandas for the National Zoo) received as symbols of improving Sino- American relations during President Nixon's administration. NUMBER 48 127 0 5cm FIGURE 96.?Handaxes [catalog number 473000] from Sebha, Libya. [Lightner accession (accession 316299). On 1 August 1975, Secretary S. Dillon Ripley wrote a letter to Mr. Chang Li-pin, stating: This morning we received from Peking a splendid present of five pieces of stone tools of the Middle Palaeolithic period collected on Dingcun, Shanzi [sic], through your good offices. I would like to say that the Smithsonian Insti? tution is deeply grateful for this honor, and that we will welcome and treasure these beautiful stone flakes with the greatest respect. Not for many years has such a splendid tribute been paid to the Smithsonian Institution, and I can as? sure you that this gift is received with great enthusiasm. Please convey to my friends in the Academia Sinica our warm respects and gratitude, and be assured that the objects will be carefully cared for and greatly respected by our pale- oanthropologists in the United States. FIGURE 97.?Flakes [catalog numbers 479216 (left), and 479218 (right)] from Dingcun, China. [People's Republic of China accession (accession 323176).] Copies of the letter were sent to K.C. Chang of Yale Univer? sity and George H.W. Bush, United States Ambassador to China [and later U.S. President]. On 25 June 1976, Herman Vi? ola, acting chairman of the Department of Anthropology, also sent a letter of acknowledgment to Chang Li-pin. Sims (ace. 351570) In 1986, two stone tools were donated to the National Mu? seum of Natural History by Mr. George Sims of Bakersfield, California. The two artifacts were part of a larger ethnological and archaeological collection acquired by the donor during his travels around the world. A label with the stone tools states that they were originally acquired as gifts from Louis B. Leakey, curator of the Coryndon Museum, in Nairobi. The label also in? dicates that the items were obtained in 1958 from Leakey's ex? cavations in the Great Rift Valley. Although the objects were thought to be from Olduvai, the artifacts were labeled "Ol- liasalic, Site 3," which refers to the site of Olorgesailie, in Kenya. Eichenberger (ace. 358176) In 1986, a collection of casts from archaeological sites throughout the world was donated to the National Museum of Natural History by J. Allen Eichenberger of Saverton, Mis? souri. Dennis Stanford, of the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, arranged for the donation of the arti? fact casts, which had been made by Eichenberger during a pe? riod of twenty years. On 29 February 1984, Douglas Ubelaker, chairman of the Department of Anthropology, wrote an official letter of acknowledgment for the collection. 128 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY FIGURE 98 (right).?A discoid (top left) [catalog num? ber 535230] and three handaxes [catalog number 535229] from Fjaje, Jordan. [Old accession (accession 387104).] FIGURE 99 (below).?Scrapers [catalog number 535238] from Qasr Kharanah, Jordan. [Old accession (accession 387104).] 5 cm NUMBER 48 129 Old (ace. 387104) In 1990, a collection of Paleolithic artifacts from Jordan was donated to the National Museum of Natural History by Ran? dolph B. Old of Severna Park, Maryland. The collection, which had been surface collected by the donor between 1978 and 1982, consisted of stone tools from six sites in Jordan. In 1978, Old took an archaeology course with Dr. Gary O. Rollefson, who es? timated the approximate age of the artifacts. On the basis of arti? fact typology, the site of Jebel Uweinid was considered Lower Paleolithic; Ain el-Assad, Fjaje and Jafr were Middle Pale? olithic; and Wadi Qilat and Qasr Kharaneh were Middle to Up? per Paleolithic. In a undated letter to Mr. Douglas Ewing of the American Association of Dealers in Ancient Oriental and Primi? tive Art, Mr. Old stated he was interested in having his collec? tion of artifacts appraised because he planned to use his dona? tion as a tax deduction. On 24 June 1986, Harmer Johnson, an appraiser and the president of the Appraisers Association of America, valued the collection at $8,595.00. Old provided information concerning the provenience of the artifacts and the nature of the various sites. Dr. Rollefson and Mr. Old's family found handaxes and choppers while camping at Jebel Uweinid in the spring of 1981. Ain el-Assad was the site of previous discoveries in 1920 and was located along a spring as a result of more recent excavations by Rollefson. Fjaje was located on a modern agricultural farm, overlooking Wadi Araba, which is part of the rift that extends into Africa (Figure 98). Jafr was a southern town at the center of what had been a large lake. A variety of tools had been found along the former lake shore. Wadi Qilat was in the desert and comprised an area of about one square mile. Bifaces and flake tools of dif? ferent ages were found there; all had been made using the soft hammer technique. Qasr Kharanah was a large, Upper Pale? olithic site that contained blades and flakes distributed within a 100 square yard area and in a deposit several feet thick (Figure 99). In a letter dated 24 November 1986, Adnan Hadidi, director general of the Royal Jordanian Department of Antiquities gave Old permission to donate to the Smithsonian Institution the flint tools collected during his residence. "I am pleased to in? form you of my approval of this request, and that I appreciate your interest in the prehistoric archaeology of this country and its promotion in the U.S. by letting more people enjoy and learn about the past of Jordan through studying these artifacts." In a memorandum dated 21 September 1989, Curator Gus Van Beek noted the significance of the collection: This relatively small collection of stone tools from various sites in Jordan is no? table for three reasons: (1) It contains all major stages in the technological de? velopment of tools from Lower Paleolithic to Neolithic, (2) It is a fully docu? mented collection as to provenience of each tool, and (3) The artifacts have been identified by Prof. Gary Rollefson, Dept. of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Rollefson is the ranking specialist on the prehistory of Jordan, having conducted research and fieldwork there for the past 11 years. The collection is, therefore, representative and well documented. Van Beek related the 1990 collection to previous research at the Smithsonian: In the context of this museum, it compliments our collections from the Mt. Car? mel caves in Israel, and from Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq. The Mt. Carmel caves preserved the most complete stratified series of deposits of early man as yet known in the Near East and South Asia. This collection came to us from the British excavations by Dorothy Garrod in the 1930s through the American School of Prehistoric Research. It is supplemented by smaller collections from other caves in Israel. With the Old Collection, it will be possible for researchers to undertake comparative studies on materials and tool development in the southern Levant, i.e., between Israel and Jordan, here in our museum. In addi? tion to research, the Collection augments our prehistoric materials available for future exhibits. On 19 October 1990, Melinda Zeder, acting chairperson of the Department of Anthropology, wrote to Old to acknowledge the gift. Human Origins Program The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program has conducted excavations in Kenya, Zaire, Botswana, Ethiopia, India, and China. The artifacts discovered during these excava? tions belong to the countries of origin; thus, they were not ac? cessioned into the Smithsonian collections. The Paleolithic ma? terials recovered by these projects are described below. Kenya Collections The Olorgesailie project, which continues at the time of this publication, is a formal collaboration between the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) and the Smithsonian Institution. Since 1986, almost 60,000 stone artifacts and an equivalent number of associated faunal remains of early and middle Pleis? tocene age (1.2 million to 500,000 years old) have been exca? vated by the Human Origins Program from the Olorgesailie Basin, southern Kenya rift valley (Figures 28, 29). Potts' inves? tigations of Acheulean hominid activities and ecological set? tings in the Olorgesailie Basin have been augmented by geo? logical investigations of the Olorgesailie Formation, particularly by National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) scientists A.K. Behrensmeyer (Department of Paleobiology) and W.G. Melson (Department of Mineral Sciences). More than one dozen scientists have participated in the study of geochro- nology, geochemistry, stone technology, and fossil animals and plants of the area (e.g., Potts, 1989, 1994; Deino and Potts, 1990; Tauxe et al., 1992; Sikes et al., 1999). The Olorgesailie research project was the first to institute a strategy of in situ sampling of early hominid artifacts and local habitats on a landscape scale, by focusing excavations within 130 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY narrow stratigraphic horizons that can be traced for long out? crop distances. The Paleolithic collections were found during detailed excavation of five main paleolandscape levels within the Olorgesailie Formation (Potts et al., 1999). Virtually all the faunal collections are housed in the NMK's Nairobi Museum, whereas the stone artifacts are kept in a building constructed by the project at the Olorgesailie Prehistoric Site Museum. A new museum building and exhibits also were developed by the Hu? man Origins Program and the NMK in the early 1990s. A set of representative Acheulean stone artifacts (n=30) from Olorgesailie are on loan to the Human Origins Program for ed? ucational purposes and for specialized analysis. The collections in the NMNH include several hundred sediment and other rock samples that were collected for dating and for paleoenviron- mental, isotopic, and other geochemical analyses. A 1985 survey of the Kanjera locality, on the Homa Penin? sula (western Kenya), led to Smithsonian excavations in 1987 and 1988, which were directed by Potts and conducted in col? laboration with the NMK (Figure 30). Approximately 220 Pa? leolithic stone artifacts of early and middle Pleistocene age were found in excavations and in surface surveys, along with bone fragments of a hippopotamus butchery and other loci of hominid activity (Plummer and Potts, 1989, 1995; Plummer, 1991; Behrensmeyer et al., 1995). The collections of stone tools and associated fauna are housed in the NMK, Nairobi. Digging resumed at Kanjera in 1994 under the co-direction of Thomas Plummer (Human Origins Program Research Asso? ciate, and City University of New York) and Potts. The re? search, like that at Olorgesailie, was part of a formal research and training agreement between the NMK and the Smithsonian Institution. This research led to the discovery of a small series of archaeological sites approximately 2.2 million years old, which are among the oldest known stone-tool sites in East Af? rica (Ditchfield et al., 1999; Plummer et al., 1999). Zaire Collections Excavation of Early to Late Stone Age archaeological sites in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) by Alison Brooks and John Yellen in the early 1990s led to the recovery of extensive stone tool and faunal collections (Figures 31, 32). The following samples are currently housed in the NMNH (counts of objects are approximations): ? 100 Early Stone Age (ESA) tools from excavated and nearby controlled surface contexts from Kasaka, Kivu Province. ? 1,000 Oldowan tools and 400 associated faunal remains from the excavated ESA site of Katanda 2 (in associa? tion with reversed polarity sediments). ? 100 excavated Sangoan and Late Acheulean stone tools from Katanda 2. ? Collections of Middle Stone Age (MSA) artifacts, asso? ciated fauna, and bone tools from the sites of Katanda 2, 9, and 16. Counts of lithics, fauna, and bone tools, re? spectively, are as follows: Katanda 2 upper: 3,700, 75, 0; Katanda 2 lower: 270, 110, 1; Katanda 9: >8,000, 7,369, 10; Katanda 16: 1,500, 10,350, 1. ? 10,000 early Late Stone Age (LSA) lithic artifacts, 5,000 faunal specimens, 150 barbed harpoon points (in three successive styles), and 50 human skeletal frag? ments from the sites of Ishango 11 and Ishango 14. These remains are significant because they represent several important prehistoric landmarks in East Africa's western rift valley and because they provide insights into human behavioral evolution. The Katanda 2 Oldowan and Kasaka collections are two of the very few excavated Oldowan and Acheulean assem? blages from Zaire. The MSA collections from Katanda include the oldest known barbed bone points in the world and provide evidence for MSA technologies and fishing in the western rift valley (Brooks et al., 1995; Yellen et al., 1995; Yellen, 1996, 1998). The LSA Ishango collections contain bone harpoons and evidence of complex fishing and microlithic technology from 20 to 25 thousand years ago in the western rift (Brooks and Smith, 1987). The Ishango sites also provide evidence for a contact zone with Ituri forest sites, even though the human re? mains from the Ishango sites appear to differ considerably from those of forest populations. Besides these Pleistocene assem? blages, Brooks and Yellen made collections at two Holocene localities. These consist of approximately 1,000 "Mesolithic" stone tools and sparse faunal specimens from the Kabale 3 site, and 12 Iron Age skeletons and associated materials from Tongo, which provide evidence for a relationship of early Iron Age peoples of the region with its modern inhabitants. All of the collections summarized herein are on loan to the Smithso? nian from the National Museums of Zaire. Botswana Collections From 1968 to 1983, Smithsonian research associates John Yellen and Alison Brooks conducted archaeological and ethno? graphic research in Botswana (e.g., Yellen, 1977; Brooks et al., 1980; Brooks and Yellen, 1987; Yellen et al., 1987). Collec? tions that resulted from this research are kept in Botswana, al? though some small samples are on loan to the Department of Anthropology, NMNH, from the National Museum of Botswana. These loaned collections include the following (counts are approximations): ? 100 stone tools and 500 faunal remains stored in NMNH (out of a collection of 20,000 stone tools and faunal specimens) excavated during 1968-1970 from LSA sites in the IKangwa and /ai/ai Valleys, Botswana (Northwest District). ? 1,000 MSA and LSA artifacts and faunal remains stored in NMNH (out of a collection of 8,000 LSA and 3,000 MSA artifacts, and 1,000 faunal fragments) exca? vated from 1968 to 1983 from *Gi, Botswana (North? west District). NUMBER 48 131 ? 200 LSA artifacts stored in NMNH (out of a collection of 3,000 LSA artifacts and 10,000 faunal remains) col? lected during 1980 from Toromoja and Gooi Pan, Botswana (Central District). These collections provide evidence of the prehistory of southern Africa, including the antiquity of the MSA and the complexity of MSA technology and hunting strategies; the ear? liest evidence of Iron Age intrusion; the ancestry of the San "bushmen"; and the existence of ethnic divisions in the Kala? hari region during the Holocene. Ethiopia Collections Beginning in the mid-1990s, Yellen and Brooks began exca? vations in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia, near the bor? der between Shoa and Wollo Provinces. To date, six sites have been excavated (Aduma 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 8a), and controlled surface collections have been made at two other sites, spanning the MSA of the region. These collections provide some of the best evidence of MSA occupations for northeastern Africa. The collections consist of about 12,000 stone tools and 2,000 faunal specimens, all of which are stored in the Paleoanthropology re? pository of the National Museums of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. India Collections In 1988, Petraglia visited the Department of Archaeology, Deccan College, Pune, India, for the purpose of lecturing and conducting a pilot study to examine Paleolithic collections in the college's museum. As a result of this trip, Dr. K. Paddayya invited Petraglia to examine the integrity and formation of Acheulian sites in the Hunsgi and Baichbal Valleys of Karna- taka (Paddayya and Petraglia, 1993). As a follow-up to this re? search, intact Acheulian surfaces were identified, and excava? tions have been conducted at the Isampur Quarry (Petraglia et al., 1999) (Figure 33). Excavation of 159 square meters yielded 15,000 stone tools. The Isampur Quarry is an unprecedented source of evidence for stone-tool making in the original spots of reduction, as well as information regarding stone-tool design and hominid decision making. In 1992, Dr. Ravi Korisettar of Kamatak University, Dhar- wad, India, invited Petraglia to conduct a survey in the Mala- prabha Valley (Korisettar and Petraglia, 1993). This research resulted in the identification of an extensive landscape of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic quarries and reduction areas (Petraglia et al., 2003) (Figure 34). The collaborative work has led to syntheses concerning Paleolithic chronology, site forma? tion, and behaviors (Petraglia, 1995, 1998). A representative set of Paleolithic artifacts (n=15) from the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley and the Malaprabha Valley, and replicated bifaces and debitage by Michael Noll (NMNH, postdoctoral fellow), are housed in the Paleoanthropology Laboratory of the Human Or? igins Program. China Collections In 1989, Alison Brooks visited and lectured at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Beijing, People's Republic of China (Brooks and Wood, 1990). The visit culminated in jointly sponsored excavations at Zhoukodian (formerly Choukoutien) and various other locali? ties near Beijing. Since the discovery of Peking Man (Homo erectus pekinensis) in the 1920s, the sites have been renowned for their value in understanding human origins between 780,000 and 18,000 years ago. In view of its special signifi? cance, Zhoukoudian was placed on the World Heritage List by UNESCO in 1987. All material recently excavated has re? mained at the Zhoukoudian research center. In 1991, Potts visited the IVPP to lecture and to study the collections. Subsequently, Potts was invited to conduct field re? search in the Bose Basin of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Re? gion, South China, in collaboration with Professor Huang Wei- wen, head of the Archeology Department at the IVPP. Excavations at the sites of Gaolingpo and Xiaomei in 1995 and 1996, coupled with excavations at Bogu from 1988 to 1993 by Huang, have resulted in discovery of several hundred in situ Paleolithic artifacts that link the thousands of surface-collected stone tools to a single horizon throughout the 800 km2 basin (Figure 35). On the basis of argon dating of associated tektites, the horizon and the tools are ca. 803,000 years old. The pres? ence of Acheulean-like handaxes and other large cutting tools demonstrates that such implements were used in East Asia more than 500,000 years ago (Hou et al., 2000; Yuan et al., 1999). A representative set of Paleolithic artifacts (n=15), tek? tites, and sediment samples from Bose are housed in the Pale? oanthropology Laboratory of the Human Origins Program. Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects The previous sections of this book have documented the his? toric and scientific context of the acquisition of collections from 1869 to 1990. While preparing this book, the authors be? came aware that the current status and foreseeable future of Old World Paleolithic research were foreshadowed by the early correspondence and memoranda of Smithsonian researchers and administrators responsible for creating most of the collec? tion. In the Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution (1871), it was noted that "the antiquity of the remains [of early humans] is much greater than was formerly supposed." Although the esti? mate for the length of the human experience changed through- 132 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY out the twentieth century, the chronology of humans and ar? chaeological remains was continually being pushed back. The oldest artifacts (stone tools) are now known to be at least 2.5 million years old, and the oldest human ancestors possibly be? tween 6 and 7 million years old, whereas five decades ago, hu? man ancestry was thought to extend back only several hundred thousand years. In the Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution (1872), Joseph Henry, the first Secretary of the Smithsonian, remarked that the goal of the Institution's acquisition of Paleolithic artifacts was "to furnish the means throughout the world of a more compre? hensive comparison, and consequently to facilitate the study of the various states of the development of human invention." This comment presages the importance of comparative analysis in the study of Paleolithic technology and early human evolu? tion. With a few exceptions (Tobias and von Koenigswald, 1964; Rightmire, 1990; Hou et al., 2000), the field of paleoan? thropology has made only tentative steps toward synthesis and the type of comprehensive, cross-continental comparison of ar? chaeological remains and fossils suggested by Henry's remark. This remains a significant goal of paleoanthropological re? search. Nearly two decades after Henry's observation, NMNH Cura? tor Thomas Wilson (1890b:513-514) stated that the purpose of prehistoric archaeology was not to study ancient objects in iso? lation but to learn about the people who made them, their be? havior and way of life. Throughout the past century, Paleolithic archaeologists have concentrated their attention on the classifi? cation of artifacts rather than on the behavior of their users. The tool typologies of F. Bordes (1961) and M. Leakey (1971), for example, were considered enormous advances in the analy? sis of Paleolithic remains. Yet, during the past 30 years, archae? ological studies of early humans have focused on how Pale? olithic objects may lead to valid inferences about various aspects of early human life, including subsistence, mobility, and cognitive capacity. Wilson's sense of the importance of context was illustrated in his notes, in which he observed, "everything is needed to study the history of prehistoric man,... every specimen of every kind, with all its associations from all localities and in as great number as possible" (Wilson, n.d.). This statement suggested what is now a common understanding in archaeological re? search?namely, the importance of sediments, preserved fauna, paleobotanical remains, and all manner of contextual data. As? sociations?such as datable substances, paleoenvironmental clues, and spatial relationships among objects?are now a vital part of Paleolithic studies. They lead to the larger subject "be? yond the objects"?i.e., how early humans and other hominid groups interacted with their surroundings, including other so? cial groups, organisms, and resources. The Paleolithic collec? tions, therefore, are not just beautiful ancient icons. They are evidence about where early humans lived and how they con? ducted their lives. In 1908, Hrdlicka recognized the necessity of traveling to foreign countries to study collections and to see the latest dis? coveries of Paleolithic artifacts and fossil humans. Hrdlicka's travels took him most frequently to Europe, but he also visited the Near East, East Asia, India, Southeast Asia, and Australia. It has long been understood that the roots of the human species are in the Old World; thus, paleoanthropological research con? tinues to depend upon travel to foreign institutions and collabo? ration with researchers in Europe, Asia, and Africa. During the past sixty years, the most significant change in the study of the Paleolithic and human ancestry has been the increase of evi? dence found in Africa. Besides an earlier trip to Egypt, Hrdlicka's only visit to Africa was in 1925 (South Africa and Rhodesia). Today, he surely would wish for more frequent travels to that continent, so rapid is the rate of well-dated dis? coveries there of very ancient human fossils and artifacts. In short, an important part of the basis of current Paleolithic research can be discovered in the perspectives of the leading curators, administrators, and collectors who amassed the Smithsonian's holdings of early human artifacts. It is mostly for this reason that we have chosen to quote so extensively in this volume from the archival correspondence and notes?to let these researchers speak for themselves. In one way or another, these voices echo the themes of greater and greater antiquity and the necessity of comparison, context, object and sediment associations, and international travel that encompass what the study of Paleolithic humans entails. The current state of Paleolithic research also has been af? fected significantly by new factors. These factors include, first, the development of new research questions that motivate the quest for archaeological evidence, and, second, the develop? ment of antiquities laws and museum collections in countries that preserve rich early Paleolithic records. These same factors have made it possible to assemble collections that will have greater scholarly value. The new research questions reflect an even greater connec? tion between Old World Paleolithic research and the overall study of human evolution. This linkage is reflected in the for? mal recognition of paleoanthropology as the synthetic field of human origins research, including the evolution of behavior, physical form, ecological dimensions, and the study of geolog? ical and environmental contexts. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the underlying idea of paleoanthropology is that the edges, or areas of overlap, of the disciplines have be? come the centers of investigation. Thus, sedimentary geology informs the behavioral interpretation of archaeological sites; the environmental sciences are strongly coupled with the study of human biological evolution; and the functional morphology of early hominids and other large mammals helps to test theo? ries about ecological settings and adaptive evolution. In 1992, the Paleoanthropology Society, with its broad international membership, was established at the initiative of John Yellen, a NMNH research associate. More locally, the Smithsonian's Pa? leoanthropology Seminar series, which has existed since 1985, NUMBER 48 133 has helped to encourage human origins research by scholars in the Washington, D.C, area. Development of this synthetic approach is evident in the re? cent progression of early human archaeological studies. This progression is characterized by the following sequence, from earlier to later: Stage I Artifacts Stage II Assemblages Stage III Sites and their context The main period during which the NMNH's collections were built occurred during the first stage?a time when the principal goal was to collect artifacts, often obtained by exchange, pur? chase, or donation from collectors or owners. By the time of the Shanidar excavation in the 1950s, archaeologists were more interested in the characteristics of assemblages of artifacts. Even then, however, the collections were divided among muse? ums with little perception of the value of keeping an assem? blage intact as a unit of analysis and interpretation. By the late 1960s, it had become apparent that not only do whole assem? blages of artifacts need to be studied but so do the sediments, archaeobiological remains, and spatial positions of the artifacts and their associations. Consequently, the study of entire exca? vations as activity areas subject to the biases of site formation and taphonomic processes has emerged as a crucial arena of re? search and debate. Contemplating current and future directions, we may con? tinue the progression by adding two more developments: Stage IV Paleolandscapes Stage V Comparison across regions and continents During the past two decades, paleoanthropologists have in? creasingly recognized that places of ancient hominid activity could be sampled by excavation across considerable distances. Since 1985, Smithsonian investigations have helped to pioneer this type of research in East Africa, in which specific artifact- and fossil-rich layers are traced laterally across long distances (Potts, 1989; Potts et al., 1999). Similar research also has been started in China and India (Hou et al., 2000; Petraglia et al., 2003). Making the paleolandscape a unit of analysis encourages new ways of examining how hominid artifacts and sites varied spatially with habitat, and how these activity-habitat relation? ships changed over time (Sikes et al., 1999; Potts et al., 1999). This type of research also encourages the finely detailed analy? sis of stone artifact distributions relative to lithic source rocks and the spatial relationships between hominids, carnivores, and potential prey animals. In addition to the recovery of Pale? olithic collections, this research strategy also requires the re? covery of new kinds of data, for example, detailed spatial data through the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geo? graphic Information System (GIS) technologies, and paleoen? vironmental data that can be obtained through stable isotopic and other geochemical methods. The growing importance of multiple, interrelated archaeological assemblages and all the pertinent data from each excavated site requires the manipula? tion of large computerized databases. In this perspective, indi? vidual artifacts are treated as part of a much larger picture? landscapes, resource distributions, and ecological settings in which the toolmakers operated. The artifacts, in fact, represent the primary means of identifying how those toolmakers adapted to the larger context. At many sites, such as caves and rock shelters, Paleolithic lo? calities are not amenable to paleolandscape analysis, because of the spatial restriction of the artifact-bearing strata. Such analysis, therefore, can be employed in only certain kinds of settings, primarily large sedimentary basins. Whatever the spa? tial expanse of an individual locality, however, it has become apparent that future progress in the archaeological understand? ing of early humans requires comparison across localities, ba? sins, regions, and eventually continents. Thus, a reasonable profile of hominid behavior and ecology for any period will need to draw extensively from the evidence from all relevant sites (e.g., McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). Paleolithic archaeol? ogy's contribution to human origins research now requires a breadth of comparison that contrasts with the tendency to view any one locality, particularly one's own field site, as the pri? mary or sole source for reconstructing early human life. What does this direction of Old World Paleolithic research, as outlined above, mean for the future of museum collections? The only way this method can succeed is if the collections from archaeological sites are kept intact. The best way to do this is to store and maintain entire assemblages in the countries where the artifacts and associated materials were found. Indeed, the factor that most strongly affects collections at the Smithsonian and at other Euro-American institutions, where professional ar? chaeology has long been an interest, is the development of an? tiquities laws and the building of museums in developing coun? tries of Africa and Asia, where the longest archaeological records exist. Although they vary, the purpose of antiquities laws is generally to protect archaeological (and historical) re? mains as cultural resources of national interest. They generally require Paleolithic artifacts to remain in the country unless per? mission is granted for specialized preparation and/or analysis. International cooperation among museums and other reposito? ries of Paleolithic materials is extremely important. A formal agreement between the Smithsonian and the National Muse? ums of Kenya (NMK) is an example of how long-term collabo? ration has led to the recovery of new Smithsonian collections that are expertly cared for in the country of origin. The NMK is one of the best museum systems in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is well known for its collections of early human fossils (currently more than 3,500) and archaeological finds. In 1987, a formal agreement concerning research and training was signed by the Smithsonian and the NMK. The agreement has enabled Smithsonian research teams to work long-term at Pale? olithic sites in Kenya (principally Olorgesailie, Kanjera, and Kanam) under a research permit granted by the NMK. The 134 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Smithsonian, in turn, has agreed to train the NMK's profes? sional scientific and museum staff in collections management, registrar activities, exhibition design, library science, public re? lations, and other aspects of museum operation. It also has pro? vided funds for NMK researchers to attend graduate programs in the United States. The agreement between the two institutions is consistent with a new concept of international collections, in which those developed by Smithsonian researchers result from collabora? tion with growing or established museum systems and other in? stitutions in other countries. The Smithsonian's Human Origins Program considers this approach to offer the best way to re? spect the antiquities of another country as an important cultural resource. This approach also makes sense scientifically in that entire assemblages of materials are kept together in the country where similar materials may be excavated in the future, and where comparison between assemblages or even individual specimens is crucial to scientific analysis. As countries retain their antiquities, there is still the possibil? ity for the exchange, loan, or donation of small samples of rep? resentative artifacts from well-documented contexts. In recent years, the Smithsonian has received small collections of arti? facts (not yet accessioned) from Olorgesailie, Kenya; Bose, China; and Hunsgi and Baichbal, India?all of which were found by Smithsonian researchers and collaborating scientists of other institutions. In addition to the recovery of artifacts, the current interna? tional research environment allows opportunity for contextual studies of Paleolithic sites and for developing extensive, ex? portable collections related to the geology, dating, and paleoen- vironmental analysis of early human sites. Smithsonian labora? tories, for example, now maintain research collections relevant to the sedimentary, geochronological, and environmental set? tings of Paleolithic sites. These collections are consistent with the research developments noted above, in which site context and paleoecological studies have become an integral part of the field of paleoanthropology. These areas of study are important in recent human origins research conducted by the Smithso? nian. As a result, paleoanthropological teams working in Africa, Asia, and Europe may include sedimentologists, soils experts, structural geologists, geomorphologists, geochronologists, geochemists, other environmental scientists, in addition to ar? chaeologists and paleontologists. The specialists typically make their own research collections, some of which may need to be transported out of the country for technical analysis. Each type of collection has its own particular relevance to under? standing the archaeological collections left in the country of or? igin. Furthermore, considerable funding is required to get re? search teams into the field, or to encourage specialists to visit other study sites and collections. In this most recent phase of Paleolithic research, archaeolo? gists must strive to understand the contributions of other disci? plines. This effort may require expanding one's research back? ground, reading outside of one's own area of expertise, and conversing with scientists in diverse fields. This approach to Paleolithic studies?and to modern paleoanthropology in gen? eral?also requires effective management of research teams and the organization of collaborators. In this aspect of their work, scientists who may have no training in these activities, must play the role of personnel managers, accountants, and diplomats, and must be able to define a project's direction while allowing collaborators and students some flexibility in their own research. An intriguing remark was made by Huang Weiwen of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who is the principal Chinese collaborator on the Smithsonian's project in southern China (in litt. to Potts, 1994). Professor Huang wrote that China and other developing countries are seeking the "internationaliza? tion" of research. He urged the Smithsonian, in its current Pale? olithic studies, to play a crucial role in this process, which en? courages scientists to reach across political borders, create then- own form of diplomacy, encourage the scholarly exchange of information, and eventually build a more integrated, cross-cul? tural intellectual enterprise. This effort remains an important future goal, one that is essential to the modern study of human origins. In short, the development and use of collections to examine the details of human evolutionary history cannot be done with? out the combination of interdisciplinary study, effective plan? ning, and international collaboration that affects every aspect of current Paleolithic investigations. As research on the Old World Paleolithic continues, it is certain that formal negotiation and personal connections, the availibility of research opportu? nities, the pursuit of the oldest (and crudest) artifacts and the most beautiful, will play as important a role as it did for the people who built the collections described herein. New ap? proaches will lead to the development of entirely different types of collections and databases, and new scientific findings will inevitably follow from the study of future collections. Ex? isting collections also will benefit, we may expect, as analytical techniques continue to blossom and offer novel ways of ex? tracting clues to Paleolithic life from the objects left behind by human ancestors. Appendix 1 Location of Correspondence (Smithsonian Institution Archives=SlA; National Anthropological Archives=NAA; National Museum of Natu? ral History Office of Registrar=OR) Date n.d. undated undated 24 Feb 1867 17 Nov 1868 15 Dec 1868 4 Mar 1869 3 May 1869 13 Jun 1869 15 Jul 1869 7 Oct 1869 25 Oct 1869 18 Nov 1869 11 Jun 1870 17 Jun 1870 5 Jul 1870 20 Jul 1870 11 Oct 1870 7 Nov 1870 20 Oct 1871 24 Jan 1872 17 Apr 1872 11 Jun 1872 9 Nov 1872 19 Dec 1872 21 Dec 1872 28 Dec 1872 9 Jan 1873 9 Apr 1879 1 Sep 1880 4 Dec 1880 26 Feb 1881 24 Jun 1881 24 Nov 1881 3 Mar 1883 17 Mar 1883 7 Apr 1883 1 May 1883 23 May 1883 23 May 1883 24 May 1883 11 Jun 1883 22 Jun 1883 22 Jun 1883 12 Dec 1883 Correspondent I Wilson Miguel Rathbun Rau Henry Rau Lartet Henry Lartet Henry Rau Henry Henry Baird Blackmore Baird Stevens Baird Henry Henry Henry Henry Henry Henry Wyman Henry Henry Pengelly Baird Baird Dawkins Dawkins Reclard Baird Pengelly Baird Pengelly Baird Pengelly Rau Baird Pengelly Powell Wilson Baird Manuscript Mason Schonland Henry Lartet Henry Henry Lartet Henry Lartet Henry Rau Lartet Blackmore Henry Blackmore Baird Stevens Blackmore Dawkins Wyman (unknown) Stevens Dawkins Henry Pengelly Wyman Henry Reynolds Reclard Baird Baird Baird Dawkins Baird Pengelly Baird Pengelly Baird Baird Pengelly Baird Wilson Powell Wilson Recipient Sources NAA OR OR SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA OR SIA OR SIA OR SIA SIA SIA SIA OR NAA NAA SIA 135 136 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Date 30 Sep 1884 18 Oct 1884 23 Dec 1884 30 Mar 1885 13 Apr 1885 14 May 1885 16 Jun 1885 18 Jul 1885 4 Aug 1885 12 Aug 1885 28 Aug 1885 15 Sep 1885 4 May 1886 11 Dec 1886 30 Dec 1886 6 Jan 1887 18 Mar 1887 7 Nov 1887 29 Nov 1887 7 Jan 1888 27 Jan 1888 17 Nov 1888 29 Nov 1888 15 Jul 1889 19 Aug 1889 18 Sep 1889 18 Apr 1890 10 Jun 1890 9 Sep 1890 30 Oct 1890 14 Nov 1890 5 Dec 1891 19 Mar 1892 19 Mar 1892 30 Nov 1892 15 May 1893 1 Jul 1893 19 Aug 1893 21 Oct 1893 24 Oct 1893 17 Nov 1893 11 Jan 1895 18 Jan 1895 19 Jan 1895 7 Feb 1895 7 Mar 1895 5 Apr 1895 18 Apr 1895 Aug 1895 29 Apr 1896 28 Jun 1897 (?)Jul 1897 14 Jul 1897 Correspondent Baird Wilson Baird Wilson Baird Wilson Wilson Wilson Baird Wilson Baird Wilson Wilson Lovett Baird Baird Wilson Lovett Goode Lovett Lovett Reynolds Goode Goode Lovett Schonland Giglioli Powell Balfour Cresson Giglioli True True True Giglioli Lovett True Powell Wilson True Powell Camp Wilson Goode Goode Quick Harrison Goode Wilson Seton-Karr Seton-Karr Seton-Karr True Recipient Wilson Baird Wilson Baird Wilson Baird Baird Baird Wilson Baird Wilson Baird Baird Baird Lovett Cosmos Club Mason Mason Lovett Mason Mason (unknown) Ransom Giglioli Goode Smithsonian Institution Goode Goode Holmes Wilson Goode Giglioli Camp Newell Goode Mason Powell True True Powell True Langley Goode Wilson Powell Goode Wilson Quick Cosmos Club address Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution Seton-Karr Sources SIA OR SIA OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA SIA SIA OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR SLA SIA SIA OR SIA OR OR OR SIA SIA SIA OR SIA OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR SIA SIA SIA OR OR SIA NUMBER 48 Date 20 Jul 1897 11 Aug 1897 15 Dec 1899 19 Feb 1900 7 Apr 1900 11 Jun 1900 12 Nov 1900 10 May 1901 10 Jun 1901 13 Sep 1901 15 Oct 1901 26 Oct 1901 17 Dec 1901 17 Oct 1902 1 Jan 1903 26 Jan 1903 19 Feb 1903 9 Mar 1903 9 Apr 1903 23 Jun 1903 5 Dec 1903 7 Dec 1903 16 Jan 1904 17 Feb 1904 5 Sep 1904 26 Sep 1904 15 Jun 1905 5 Aug 1905 9 Oct 1905 19 Oct 1905 30 Oct 1905 10 May 1906 17 Aug 1906 6 Feb 1907 12 May 1907 23 Jun 1907 10 Aug 1907 19 Sep 1907 19 Nov 1907 24 Jan 1908 1 May 1908 4 May 1908 9 Jun 1908 25 Jun 1908 29 Jun 1908 3 Jul 1908 9 Sep 1908 29 Oct 1908 1 Jan 1909 11 Feb 1909 17 Feb 1909 19 Apr 1909 Correspondent Wilson Wilson Miguel Peyrony McGuire Capitan Peyrony Steierli Third Assistant Secretary US State Department Else Internal SI Memo: Wilson Acting Chief Clerk Else Rathbun Seton-Karr Hemphill and Peter Homes Rathbun Geare Seton-Karr Rathbun Rathbun Hemphill and Peter Ravenel Schonland Schonland Miguel Miguel Nightingale Upham Rathbun Miguel Nightingale Martin Martin Seton-Karr Rathbun Seton-Karr Rathbun Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Mason Coulon Mason Holmes Ravenel Nightingale Coulon Coulon Upham Ravenel Frank Clark Recipient Walcott True Smithsonian Institution Wilson Langley Wilson Wilson American Consulate in Zurich Langley Smithsonian Institution (unknown) Geare Smithsonian Institution Seton-Karr Smithsonian Institution Langley Mason Seton-Karr Rathbun Rathbun Langley Langley Langley Coulon Rathbun Rathbun Langley Rathbun Bureau of American Ethnology Holmes Miguel Rathbun Rathbun Walcott Smithsonian Institution Rathbun Seton-Karr Rathbun Seton-Karr Hough Mason Rathbun Smithsonian Institution Kroeber Ravenel Coulon Secretary Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution Hough Coulon Smithsonian Institution Sources SIA SIA SIA OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR SIA OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA SIA OR OR NAA NAA NAA OR SIA OR SIA SIA OR OR OR SIA OR 137 138 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Date 7 May 1909 15 May 1909 7 Jun 1909 13 Jul 1909 19 Jul 1909 3 Feb 1912 12 Jul 1912 13 Jul 1912 28 Aug 1912 28 Sep 1912 10 Oct 1912 19 Nov 1912 25 Nov 1912 10 Dec 1912 24 Dec 1912 22 Jan 1913 7 Feb 1913 8 Feb 1913 27 Mar 1913 12 May 1913 19 May 1913 10 Jun 1913 13 Jun 1913 18 Jun 1913 28 Jun 1913 3 Jul 1913 24 Jul 1913 27 Aug 1913 12 Sep 1913 18 Dec 1913 20 Jan 1914 28 Mar 1914 5 May 1914 23 Jan 1918 28 Jan 1918 4 Feb 1918 20 Feb 1918 6 Jun 1919 6 Dec 1920 31 Jul 1921 3 Dec 1921 20 Jan 1922 23 May 1922 14 Feb 1923 4 May 1923 5 May 1923 5 May 1923 25 May 1923 9 Jun 1923 18 Jul 1923 31 Jul 1923 13 Oct 1923 Correspondent Rathbun Herbert Clark Coulon Upham Ravenel Currelly Holmes Holmes Holmes Pfeiffer Hrdlicka Haygood Hrdlicka Pfeiffer Rehlen Holmes Rathbun Rathbun Rehlen Holmes Rutot Rutot Peabody Rathbun Peabody Rathbun Rathbun Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Rathbun Rathbun Marett Holmes Currelly Ravenel Currely Ravenel Hrdlicka MacCurdy Hrdlicka Peabody Peabody Wilman MacCurdy Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Ravenel Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Peabody Hrdlicka Recipient Herbert Clark Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution Hough Coulon Hrdlicka Rathbun Rathbun Rehlen Holmes Gorjanovic-Kramberger US Vice Consul General to South Africa Gorjanovic-Kramberger Holmes Holmes Rehlen Haygood Talken Holmes Rathbun Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Holmes Peabody Holmes Pfeiffer Rehlen Martin Rathbun Rutot Rutot Rutot Hrdlicka Ravenel Holmes Currelly Holmes Marriott Peabody Hrdlicka MacCurdy Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Hough Hrdlicka Peabody MacCurdy Congo Mission Moir Hough Hrdlicka Moir Sources OR OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR NAA OR OR OR OR OR SIA SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR NAA OR NAA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR NAA NAA NAA NAA NAA OR NAA NAA NAA OR NAA NAA NAA NAA 48 Date 17 Oct 1923 29 Oct 1923 2 Nov 1923 10 Nov 1923 12 Nov 1923 14 Dec 1923 7 Jan 1924 26 Jan 1924 26 Jan 1924 11 Feb 1924 16 Feb 1924 26 Mar 1924 3 Apr 1924 22 Apr 1924 25 Apr 1924 25 Jun 1924 9 Jul 1924 10 Aug 1924 26 Aug 1924 30 Aug 1924 27 Sep 1924 14 Nov 1924 18 Jan 1925 25 Jan 1925 1 Feb 1925 13 Feb 1925 18 Feb 1925 28 Apr 1925 25 Jun 1925 30 Jun 1925 29 Jul 1925 21 Aug 1925 19 Oct 1925 21 Oct 1925 11 Nov 1925 9 Dec 1925 7 Jan 1926 7 Jan 1926 8 Jan 1926 9 Feb 1926 19 Feb 1926 24 Mar 1926 2 May 1926 8 May 1926 10 Jun 1926 14 Jun 1926 15 Jun 1926 13 Oct 1926 8 Dec 1926 19 Apr 1927 9 Dec 1927 26 Mar 1928 7 May 1928 Correspondent Peyrony Moir Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Martin Ravenel Peabody Martin Ravenel Hrdlicka Ravenel Reygasse Ravenel Ravenel Hrdlicka Peyrony MacCurdy Hrdlicka Ami Reygasse Carroll Cleland Ravenel Cleland Ravenel Cleland Hrdlicka Abbott Wetmore Wetmore Reygasse Wetmore Bodding Bodding Hrdlicka Wetmore Wetmore Wetmore Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Wetmore MacCurdy Hrdlicka MacCurdy Wetmore Chanda Ravenel Wetmore Hrdlicka Wetmore Gill Hrdlicka Recipient Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Peyrony Moir Martin Walcott Martin MacCurdy Walcott Moir MacCurdy Hrdlicka Smithsonian Institution Martin Reygasse Peyrony Hrdlicka Hrdlicka Ami Hrdlicka Ravenel Walcott Smithsonian Institution Cleland Smithsonian Institution Cleland Ravenel Hough Marshall Gravely Reygasse Wetmore Reygasse Wetmore Hrdlicka Bodding Hrdlicka Jones Gravely Absolon Wetmore Bodding Hough Martin Hrdlicka MacCurdy Smithsonian Institution Bushnell Chanda Bodding MacCurdy Hrdlicka Absolon Sources NAA NAA NAA NAA NAA OR OR NAA OR OR NAA OR OR OR OR NAA NAA NAA NAA NAA OR NAA OR OR OR OR OR NAA OR OR OR OR OR OR NAA NAA OR OR OR NAA NAA OR OR NAA NAA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR NAA 139 140 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Date 25 May 1928 29 Aug 1928 18 Oct 1928 25 Jan 1929 20 Feb 1929 1 Mar 1929 3 Apr 1929 17 May 1929 1 Nov 1929 4 Nov 1929 9 Dec 1929 13 Dec 1929 9 Feb 1930 27 Jun 1930 6 Aug 1930 6 Aug 1930 20 Aug 1930 20 Sep 1930 25 Oct 1930 30 Oct 1930 1 Nov 1930 12 Feb 1931 15 Mar 1931 2 May 1931 7 May 1931 2 Jun 1931 23 Sep 1931 23 Sep 1931 25 Sep 1931 24 Dec 1931 9 Jan 1932 8 Feb 1932 5 May 1932 9 May 1932 12 May 1932 7 Jun 1932 1 Aug 1932 23 Sep 1932 26 Sep 1932 1 Oct 1932 10 Oct 1932 4 Nov 1932 2 Dec 1932 10 Feb 1933 10 Jun 1933 26 Jun 1933 30 Jun 1933 5 Oct 1933 5 Mar 1934 5 Apr 1934 19 Apr 1934 14 May 1934 Correspondent Wetmore MacCurdy Wetmore MacCurdy Wetmore MacCurdy advert. Russell Wetmore Judd Wetmore Judd Wetmore Russell Russell Russell Russell Wetmore Russell Russell Wetmore Wetmore Sanz Graf Sanz MacCurdy Graf Carballo Carballo Russell Graf Wetmore Wetmore Hrdlicka MacCurdy Hrdlicka MacCurdy Binghamton Press article MacCurdy Hrdlicka MacCurdy MacCurdy Graf Russell Abbott Townsend Wetmore Riggs MacCurdy Wetmore Moritz Wetmore Judd Recipient Gill Hough Russell Hrdlicka Riggs (unknown) Wetmore Russell Hough Absolon Hough MacCurdy Judd Wetmore Wetmore Carballo Russell Judd (unknown) Russell MacCurdy Smithsonian Institution Sanz Graf Hough Sanz Russell USNM Wetmore Begouen Carballo Russell MacCurdy Hrdlicka MacCurdy Hrdlicka (unknown) Hrdlicka MacCurdy Hough Hrdlicka Riggs Wetmore US Secretary of State Abbott Riggs Wetmore Hough Abbott Wetmore Russell MacCurdy Sources OR NAA SIA NAA OR NAA SIA SIA OR OR OR OR SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA SIA OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA SIA SIA OR SIA SIA NAA NAA NAA NAA SIA NAA NAA OR NAA OR SIA SIA OR OR OR OR SIA SIA SIA OR 48 Date 21 May 1934 8 Jun 1934 9 Jun 1934 15 Jun 1934 7 Oct 1934 29 Oct 1934 31 Oct 1934 19 Feb 1935 20 Feb 1935 27 May 1935 28 May 1935 6 Jun 1935 7 Jun 1935 10 Jun 1935 15 Jun 1935 12 Jul 1935 15 Jul 1935 2 Aug 1935 28 Aug 1935 31 Aug 1935 1 Jul 1936 24 Oct 1936 6 Feb 1938 25 Apr 1938 23 Aug 1938 24 Sep 1938 23 Dec 1938 23 Dec 1938 30 Sep 1940 6 Nov 1940 19 Apr 1945 31 Dec 1946 3 Oct 1947 15 Oct 1947 15 Apr 1949 3 Apr 1951 12 Apr 1951 2 Jan 1958 29 Nov 1952 8 Dec 1952 14 Dec 1952 11 Mar 1953 28 Apr 1953 10 Jun 1954 17 Aug 1954 10 Jun 1955 20 Sep 1955 8 Sep 1956 13 Dec 1956 17 Feb 1957 Correspondent MacCurdy Judd MacCurdy Graf Johnson MacCurdy Judd MacCurdy Judd Judd Wetmore Abbott Judd Wetmore Graf Judd Leach Wetmore Wetmore Riggs Wetmore Graf Abbott Judd Abbott Judd Graf Graf Franssen Graf Graf Glueck Setzler Glueck Kellogg Glueck Wetmore Solecki Vass Wymer Setzler Kellogg Kellogg Jayadev Setzler Aiyappan Setzler Solecki Kellogg Paige Recipient Judd MacCurdy Judd Riggs Judd Judd Johnson Judd MacCurdy Abbott Abbott Wetmore Hough Leach Riggs Johnson Wetmore Leach MacCurdy Wetmore Abbott Wilman Judd Abbott Judd Abbott Abbott Swan Smithsonian Institution Franssen Reeves Wetmore Glueck Setzler Glueck Wetmore Glueck Reed Smithsonian Instituion Wedel Vass Wymer Vass Smithsonian Institution Jayadev Setzler Aiyappan Setzler Bordes Setzler Sources OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR 141 142 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Date 26 May 1957 1 Jan 1958 2 Jan 1958 21 Jan 1958 15 May 1958 4 Jan 1964 14 Jan 1964 26 Feb 1965 9 Feb 1966 15 Feb 1966 13 Apr 1966 9 Aug 1966 26 Apr 1968 28 Jul 1972 14 Sep 1972 25 Oct 1972 1 May 1973 13 Mar 1975 1 Aug 1975 24 May 1976 25 Jun 1976 29 Feb 1984 24 Nov 1986 21 Sep 1989 19 Oct 1990 Correspondent Kellogg al Asil Solecki Carmichael Kellogg Cole Stewart Evans Van Beek Citron Van Beek Woodbury Peterson Barbour Barbour Knez Evans Fitzhugh Ripley Fitzhugh Viola Ubelaker Hadidi Van Beek Zeder Recipient Paige Stewart Reed al Asil al Asil Van Beek Jones Cole Citron Van Beek Citron Citron Shiner Knez Knez Barbour Barbour Lightner Li-pin Klima Li-pin Eichenberger Old (unknown) Old Sources OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SIA OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR Literature Cited Alexander, C A . 1872. Man as the Contemporary of the Mammoth and the Reindeer in Middle Europe. In Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, pages 406-407. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office [transla? tion]. Angel, J.L. 1976. T. Dale Stewart. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45' 521-530. Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution 1869. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 474 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1871. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 494 pages.Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1872. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 456 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1879. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 575pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1885. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 1203 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1886. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 813 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1932. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion. 497 pages. Washington, D C : Government Printing Office. Annual Report, U.S. National Museum 1890. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion, U.S. National Museum. 788 pages. Washington, D.C: Govern? ment Printing Office. 1891. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion, U.S. National Museum. 837 pages. Washington, D.C: Govern? ment Printing Office. 1904. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institu? tion, U.S. National Museum. 751 pages. Washington, D.C: Govern? ment Printing Office. Bahn, P.G. 1984. Pyrenean Prehistory: A Paleoeconomic Survey of the French Sites. 511 pages. Warminster: Aris & Philips. Bahn, P.G, and G.H. Cole 1986. La prehistoire pyrenenne aux Etats-Unis. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Ariege-Pyr6n6es, 41:95-149. Beggs, V. 1938. Removal of a Side in the Transformation of Keeled Endscrapers at Mount Carmel, Palestine. Bulletin of the American School of Prehis? toric Research, 14:55-61. Begouen, H., and J.T. Russell 1933. La campagne de Fouilles de 1931 a Marsoulas, tarte et roquecour? bere. 20 pages. Toulouse: Privat. Behrensmeyer, A.K., R. Potts, T.W. Plummer, L. Tauxe, N. Opdyke, and T. Jorstad 1995. The Pleistocene Locality of Kanjera, Western Kenya: Stratigraphy, Chronology, and Paleoenvironments. Journal of Human Evolution, 29:247-274. Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. Publications del'Insti? tut de Prehistoire de I'Universite de Bordeaux, memoire 1, 2: 85 pages. Broca, M.P. 1873. The Troglodytes, or Cave-Dwellers, of the Valley of the Vezerc. In Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, pages 310-347. Washing? ton, D.C: Government Printing Office. [Translation from French.] Brooks, A.S., A.L. Crowell, and J.E. Yellen 1980. *Gi, A Stone Age Archaeological Site in Northern Kalahari Desert, Botswana. In R.E.F. Leakey and B.A. Ogot, editors, Proceedings of the VIII Panafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies (Nairobi, 1977), pages 304-309. Nairobi: The International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory. Brooks, A.S., D.M. Helgren, J. Cramer, A. Franklin, W. Hornyak, J.M. Keat? ing, R.G Klein, W.J. Rink, H. Schwartz, J.N.L. Smith, K. Stewart, N.E. Todd, J. Verniers, and J. Yellen 1995. Dating and Context of Three Middle Stone Age Sites with Bone Points in the Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. Science, 268:548-553. Brooks, A.S., and C.C. Smith 1987. Ishango Revisited: New Age Determination and Cultural Interpreta? tions. African Archaeological Review, 5:65-78. Brooks, A.S., and B. Wood 1990. The Chinese Side of the Story. Nature, 344:288-289. Brooks, A.S., and J.E. Yellen 1987. The Preservation of Activity Areas in the Archaeological Record: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Work in Northwest Ngam- iland, Botswana. In S. Kent, editor, Method and Theory for Activity Area Research, pages 63-106. New York: Columbia University Press. Bushnell, D.I. 1939. The Use of Soapstone by the Indians of the Eastern United States. In Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, pages 471-489. Washing? ton, D.C: Government Printing Office. Campbell, J.B., and CG. Sampson 1971. A New Analysis of Kent's Cavern, Devonshire, England. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers, 3: vii + 40. Carballo, J. 1924. Prehistoria universaly especial de Espaha. 426 pages. Madrid: Im- prenta de la Vivda del Homo. 1931. The American School of Prehistoric Research Visits the Cavern of El Pendo. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 7:24-27. Carroll, M. 1925. Les Eyzies, Capital of the Prehistoric World. Art and Archaeology, 19:115-120. Chapman, W.R. 1985. Arranging Ethnology: A.H. Pitt Rivers and the Typological Tradi? tion. In GW. Stocking, editor, Objects and Others: Essays on Muse? ums and Material Culture, pages 15-48. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Clottes, J. 1997. New Laboratory Techniques and Their Impact on Paleolithic Cave Art. In M. Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann, and N. Jablonski, edi? tors, Beyond Art. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 23:37-52. Cook, J., and H. Martingell 1994. The Carlyle Collection of Stone Age Artifacts from Central India. 162 pages. London: British Museum. Cresson, H.T. 1890. Early Man in the Delaware Valley. Proceedings of the Boston Soci? ety of Natural History. 24:141-150. 1892. Paleolithic Man in the Southern Portion of the Delaware Valley. Sci? ence. 20:304-305. Daniel, G. 1975. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. Second edition, 410 pages. London: Duckworth. 143 144 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Dawkins, W.B. 1874. Cave Hunting: Researches on the Evidence of Caves Respecting the Early Inhabitants of Europe, xxiv+455 pages. London: MacMillan. 1880. Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period. xxiii+ 537 pages. London: MacMillan. 1883. Early Man in America. North American Review, 137:338-349. Deino, A., and R. Potts 1990. Single Crystal 40Ar/39Ar Dating of the Olorgesailie Formation, Southern Kenya Rift. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95(B6): 8453-8470. DeSimone, A.A. 1997. MacCurdy, George Grant (1863-1947). In F. Spencer, editor, His? tory of Physical Anthropology, volume 2, pages 629-631. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Ditchfield, P., J. Hicks, T. Plummer, L. Bishop, and R. Potts 1999. Current Research on the Late Pliocene and Pleistocene Deposits North of Homa Mountain, Southwestern Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 36:123-150. Dunnell, R.C 1986. Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. Ad? vances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 9:149-207. Dupont, E. 1869. Decouverte d'une cavern a Goyet. Bulletin of the Royal Academy of Belgium, 27:193. 1872. Les tempsprehistoriques en Belgique. 250 pages, 4 plates. Bruxelles: L'Homme pendant les ages dans les environs de Dinant-Sur-Meuse. Ferembach, D. 1997. Lartet, Edouard (Armand Isidore Hippolyte) (1801-1871). In F. Spencer, editor, History of Physical Anthropology, volume 1, pages 605-607. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Fischer, P. 1873. The Scientific Labors of Edward Lartet. In Annual Report, Smithso? nian Institution, pages 172-184. Washington, D . C : Government Printing Office. [Translation from French.] Foucher, P., and C. San Juan 2000a. La Grotte de Roquecourbere (Betchat, Ariege): Ses Industries Lithiques Solutreennes et la Revision Critique de son Art Parietal. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise, 97:199-210. 2000b. Redecouverte d'un Atelier de Plein Air Solutreen a Roquecourbere (Betchat, Ariege). Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Ariege- Pyrenees, 55:19-25. Garrod, D.A.E. 1930. The Palaeolithic of Southern Kurdistan: Excavations in the Caves of Zarzi and Hazar Merd. Bulletin of the American School of Prehis? toric Research, 6:8-43. 1931. Excavations in the Caves of the Wady-el-Mughara, 1929 and 1930. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 7:5-11. 1932. Excavations in the Wady al-Mughara (Palestine), 1931. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 8:6-11. 1934. Excavations at the Wady al-Mughara (Palestine), 1932-33. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 10:7-12. 1935. Excavations in the Mugharet et-Tabun (Palestine), 1934. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 11:54?58. 1936. A Summary of Seven Seasons' Work at the Wady el-Mughara. Bul? letin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 12:125-130. 1937. The Near East as a Gateway of Prehistoric Migration. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 13:17-21. Garrod, D.A.E., and D.M.A. Bate 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: Excavations at the Wady El- Mughara. Volume 1, 240 pages. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Glenn, J.R. 1992. Guide to the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Insti? tution. xvi+314 pages. Washington, D.C: National Anthropological Archives. Glueck, N. 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, volumes 25-28. New Haven, Connecticut. Grayson. D.K. 1983. The Establishment of Human Antiquity, xii+262 pages. New York: Academic Press. 1986. Eoliths, Archaeological Ambiguity, and the Generation of "Middle Range" Research. In D.J. Meltzer, D.D. Fowler, and J.A. Sabloff, editors, American Archaeology Past and Future, pages 77-133 . Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1990. The Provision of Time Depth for Paleoanthropology. In L. Laporte, editor, The Establishment of a Geologic Framework for Paleoan? thropology. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 242:1-13. Griffin, J.B. 1985. The Formation of the Society for American Archaeology. American Antiquity, 50:261-271. Harper, A.B., and W.S. Laughlin 1982. Inquiries into the Peopling of the New World: Development of Ideas and Recent Advances. In F. Spencer, editor, A History of American Physical Anthropology 1930-1980, pages 281-304. New York: Ac? ademic Press. Harrison, B. 1895. High-Level Flint-Drift of the Chalk: Report of the Committee, Con? sisting of Sir John Evans (Chairman), Mr. B. Harrison (Secretary), Professor J. Prestwich, and Professor H.G. Seeley. British Associa? tion for the Advancement of Science Report, 65:349-351. Hinsley, CM., Jr. 1976. Amateurs and Professionals in Washington Anthropology, 1879? 1903. In J. Murra, editor, American Anthropology: The Early Years, pages 36-68. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing. 1981. Savages and Scientists: The Smithsonian Institution and the Devel? opment of American Anthropology 1846-1910. 319 pages. Washing? ton, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1985. From Shell-Heaps to Stelae: Early Anthropology at the Peabody Museum. In GW. Stocking, editor, Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, pages 49-74. Madison: The Uni? versity of Wisconsin Press. Hole, F., and K. Flannery 1967. The Prehistory of Southwestern Iran: A Preliminary Report. Pro? ceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 33(9): 147-206. Holmes, W.H. 1890. A Quarry Workshop of the Flaked-Stone Implement Makers in the District of Columbia. American Anthropologist, 3:1?26. 1897. Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 152 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. Hou, Y, R. Potts, B. Yuan, Z. Guo, A. Deino, W. Wang, J. Clark, G Xie, and W. Huang 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like Stone Technology of the Bose Ba? sin, South China. Science, 287:1622-1626. Hrdlicka, A. n.d. Unpublished Manuscript. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlicka Papers. 1913. The Most Ancient Skeletal Remains of Man. In Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, pages 491-552. Washington, D .C : Govern? ment Printing Office. 1920. Shovel-Shaped Teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 3:187-193. 1921. The Peopling of Asia. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 45:535-545. 1923. Studies on Early Man in Europe. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Col? lections, 76:56-66. 1927. The Neanderthal Phase of Man. Journal of the Royal Anthropologi? cal Institute, 47:249-274. NUMBER 48 145 1930a. The Skeletal Remains of Early Man. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 83:x+379 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Print? ing Office. 1930b. Anthropological Survey in Alaska. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pages 19-374. Washington, D .C : Govern? ment Printing Office. 1944. The Anthropology of Kodiak Island, xix+486 pages. Philadelphia: Wistar Press. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. xx+ 630 pages. Washington, D.C: Carnegie Institute. Jacknis, I. 1985. Franz Boas and Exhibits: On the Limitations of the Museum Method of Anthropology. In GW. Stocking, editor, Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, pages 75-111. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Johnson, J.P. 1904. On the Discovery of Implement-Bearing Deposits in the Neighbour? hood of Johannesburg: Their Relative Age, and Bearing on the Question of the Antiquity of Man in South Africa. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa, 6:60-67. Keith, A. 1925. The Antiquity of Man. xx+519 pages. London: Williams and Nor- gate. [First publication 1915.] 1931. New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man. 512 pages. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Keith, A., and T.D. McCown 1937. Mount Carmel Man: His Bearing on the Ancestry of Modern Races. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 13:5-16. Kennedy, K.A.R. 1997. McCown, Theodore D(oney) (1908-1969). In F. Spencer, editor, History of Physical Anthropology, volume 2, pages 627-629. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Kohlstedt, S.G. 1991. The Origins of Natural Science in America: Essays of George Brown Goode. xi+411 pages. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Insti? tution Press. Korisettar, R., and M. Petraglia 1993. Explorations in the Malaprabha Valley, Karnataka. Man and Envi? ronment, 18:43^18. Landau, M. 1991. Narratives of Human Evolution, xiii+202 pages. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lartet, E., and H. Christy 1865-1875. Reliquae Aquitanicae, being Contributions to the Archaeol? ogy and Palaeontology ofPerigord and the Adjoining Provinces of Southern France, xxii+302 pages. London. Leakey, M.D. 1971. Olduvai Gorge. Volume 3, 306 pages. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni? versity Press. Loring, S., and M. Prokopec 1994. A Most Peculiar Man, the Life and Times of Ale? HrdliSka. In T.L. Bray and T.W. Killion, editors, Reckoning with the Dead, pages 26- 40. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. Luquet, G.-H. 1926. L Art et la religion des hommesfossiles. 229 pages. Paris: Masson & Cie. 1930. The Art and Religion of Fossil Man. xiv+213 pages. Translated by J.T. Russell. New Haven: Yale University Press. MacCurdy, GG. 1922. The First Season's Work of the American School in France for Pre? historic Studies. American Anthropologist, 24:61-71. 1924. Human Origins. Volumes 1-3. London: D. Appleton and Company. 1925. American School of Prehistoric Research in Europe, Excavations and Researches, 1924. Art and Archaeology, 19:121-130. 1927. Report by the Director on the Work of the Sixth Season. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 3:1-22. 1928. Report by the Director on the Work of the Seventh Season. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 4:3-8. 1930. Preface. In G-H. Luquet, The Art and Religion of Fossil Man. Translated by J.T. Russell, pages vii-viii. New Haven: Yale Univer? sity Press. 1931. The Abri des Merveilles at Castel-Merle near Sergeac (Dordogne). Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 7:12-23. 1934. Excavations in Palestine by Great Britain and the United States. Sci? ence, 79(2047):265. 1938. Report of the Director, To the Board of Trustees of the American School of Prehistoric Research. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 14:3-5. Martin, H. 1911. Sur un squelette humain l'epoque Mousterienne trouve en Charente. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Stances de I'Academie des Sciences, 153:728-730. 1912a. Position stratigraphique des ossements humains recueillis dans Ie mousterien de La Quina de 1908 et 1912. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise, 9:700-709. 1912b. Le crane de l'homme fossile Mousterien dans le gisement de La Quina (Charente) III: L'homme fossile. Association Francaise de I'Advancement de Science, 41:538?539. Mason, O.T. 1902. In Memorium, Thomas Wilson. American Anthropologist, 4:1-6. McBrearty, S., and A.S. Brooks 2000. The Revolution that Wasn't: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39:453- 563. McCown, T.D. 1932. A Note on the Excavation and the Human Remains from the Mugh? aret es-Sukhul (Cave of the Kids), Season of 1931. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 8:12-15. 1933. Fossil Men of the Mugharet es-Sukhul near Athlit, Palestine, Season of 1932. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 9:9-16. 1934. The Oldest Complete Skeleton of Man. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 10:13-17. 1936. Mount Carmel Man. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 12:131-140. 1948. George Grant MacCurdy, 1863-1947. American Anthropologist, 50: 516-524. McCown, T.D., and A. Keith 1939. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel: The Fossil Human Remains from the Levalloiso-Mousterian. Volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meltzer, D.J. 1983. The Antiquity of Man and the Development of American Archaeol? ogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 6:1-51. 1985. North American Archaeology and Archaeologists, 1879-1934. American Antiquity, 50:249-260. 1998. Introduction: Ephraim Squier, Edwin Davis, and the Making of an American Archaeological Classic. In D.J. Meltzer, editor, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, by E.G. Squier and E.H. Davis, pages 1-98. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institu? tion Press. Meltzer, D.J., and R.C. Dunnell 1992. Introduction. In D.J. Meltzer and R.C. Dunnell, editors, The Archae? ology of William Henry Holmes, pages vii-1. Washington, D .C : Smithsonian Institution Press. Meltzer, D.J., and W.C. Sturtevant 1983. The Holly Oak Shell Game: An Historic Archaeological Fraud. In R.C. Dunnell and D.K. Grayson, editors, Lulu Linear Punctated: Es? says in Honor of George Irving Quimby. Anthropological Papers, 146 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 72:325-352. Mitchell, P. 2002. Catalogue of Stone Age Artifacts from Southern Africa in the British Museum. 240 pages. London: British Museum Press. Moir, J.R. 1919. Pre-Palaeolithic Man. Pages 7-67. Ipswich: W.E. Harison. Montagu, A. 1944. Ales Hrdlicka, 1869-1943. American Anthropologist, 46:113-117. Morgan, J. de 1926. La prehistoire Orientale, II: L'Egypte et L'Afrique du Nord. 433 pages. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Mortillet, G de 1872. Ethnological Department of the French Exposition, 1867. In Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, pages 407?411. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office [translation]. Paddayya, K., and M. Petraglia 1993. Formation Processes of Acheulean Localities in the Hunsgi and Ba- ichbal Valleys, Peninsular India. In P. Goldberg, D.T. Nash, M.D. Petraglia, editors, Formation Processes in Archaeological Context, pages 61-82. Madison: Prehistory Press. Patterson, T.C 1995. Toward a Social History of Archaeology in the United States. x+ 181 pages. Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Publishers. Peabody, C. 1923. Annual Report of the Director of the American School in France of Prehistoric Studies, 1922-23. Bulletin of the Archaeological Insti? tute of America, 14:115-118. Penniman, T.K. 1974. A Hundred Years of Anthropology. 397 pages. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Petraglia, M.D. 1995. Pursuing Site Formation Research in India. In S. Wadia, R. Koriset? tar, and VS. Kale, editors, Quaternary Environments and Geoar- chaeology of India, pages 446-465. Bangalore: Geological Society of India. 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and Its Bearing on the Asian Record. In M.D. Petraglia and R. Korisettar, editors, Early Human Behaviour in Global Context, pages 343-390. London: Routledge Press. Petraglia, M.D., R. Korisettar, and J. Schuldenrein 2001. Paleolithic Assemblages and Landscapes of the Lakhmapur Local? ity, Peninsular India. [Unpublished manuscript in possession of au? thors.] Petraglia, M.D., P. LaPorta, and K. Paddayya 1999. The First Acheulian Quarry in India: Stone Tool Manufacture, Bi- face Morphology, and Behaviors. Journal of Anthropological Re? search, 55:39-70. Petraglia, M.D., and M. Noll 2001. Indian Palaeolithic Collections in the Smithsonian Institution: Inter? national Exchanges and Their Archaeological Potential. Man and Environment, 26:57-68. Petraglia, M.D., and R.B. Potts 1992. Deux "mortiers" du Paleolithique superieur de La Madeleine, Dor? dogne, France.L'Anthropologie, 96(1):209?212. Petraglia, M., R. Potts, L.G. Straus, and P. Vandiver 2001. Upper Paleolithic Collections from the Salat Valley of Pyrnean France. [Unpublished manuscript in possession of authors.] Petraglia, M.D., R. Potts, and PB. Vandiver 1992. Une "Palette d'Artiste" du Paleolithique superieur provenant de la Grotte de Tarte, Haute Garonne, France. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique de L 'Ariege, 47:161-175. Petraglia, M.D., J. Schuldenrein, and R. Korisettar 2003. Landscapes, Activity, and the Acheulean to Middle Paleolithic Tran? sition in the Kaladgi Basin, India. Eurasian Prehistory1, 1(2):3?24. Petraglia, M.D., L.G Straus, and R. Potts 2002. French Pyrenean Collections in the Smithsonian Institution: Upper Paleolithic Assemblages from the Salat Valley. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique de L'Ariege-Pyrenees, LVIL171-194. Plummer, T.W. 1991. Site Formation and Paleoecology at the Early to Middle Pleistocene Locality of Kanjera. 537 pages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University. Plummer, T , L.C. Bishop, P. Ditchfield, and J. Hicks 1999. Research on Late Pliocene Oldowan Sites at Kanjera South, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 36:151-170. Plummer, T , and R. Potts 1989. Excavations and New Findings at Kanjera, Kenya. Journal of Hu? man Evolution, 18:269-276. 1995. The Hominid Fossil Sample from Kanjera, Kenya: Description, Provenance and Implications of New and Earlier Discoveries. Amer? ican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 96:7-23. Posansky, M., and GH. Cole 1963. Recent Excavations at Magosi, Uganda: A Preliminary Report. Man, 133:104-106. Potts, R. 1982. Lower Pleistocene Site Formation and Hominid Activities at Oldu? vai Gorge, Tanzania, xii+494 pages. Unpublished doctoral disserta? tion, Harvard University. 1983. Foraging for Faunal Resources by Early Hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, editors, Ani? mals and Archaeology, 1: Hunters and Their Prey. British Archaeo? logical Reports, International Series, 163:51-62. 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. xi+396 pages. New York: Al? dine de Gruyter. 1989. Olorgesailie: New Excavations and Findings in Early and Middle Pleistocene Contexts, Southern Kenya Rift Valley. Journal of Hu? man Evolution, 18:477^484. 1994. Variables vs. Models of Early Pleistocene Hominid Landuse. Jour? nal of Human Evolution, 27:7-24. Potts, R., A.K. Behrensmeyer, and P. Ditchfield 1999. Paleolandscape Variation in Early Pleistocene Hominid Activities: Members 1 and 7, Olorgesailie Formation, Kenya. Journal of Hu? man Evolution, 37:747-788. Prestwich, J. 1889. On the Occurrence of Palaeolithic Flint Implements in the Neigh? bourhood of Ightham, Kent, Their Distribution and Probable Age. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 45:270-297. 1892. On the Primitive Characters of the Flint Implements of the Chalk Plateau of Kent, with Reference to the Question of Their Glacial or Pre-Glacial Age. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 21:246- 276. 1895. The Greater Antiquity of Man. Nineteenth Century, 37:617-628. Rau, C. 1876. Early Man in Europe. 162 pages. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1889. Report on the Department of Archaeology in the U.S. National Mu? seum, 1887. Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, part 2, pages 83-85. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. Riedman, S.R. 1961. Trail blazer of American Science: The Life of Joseph Henry. 224 pages. New York: Rand-McNally and Co. Rightmire, P.G. 1990. The Evolution of Homo erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species, xii + 260 pages. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Rivinus, E.F., and E.M. Youssef 1992. Spencer Baird of the Smithsonian, x+228 pages. Washington, D .C : Smithsonian Institution Press. NUMBER 48 147 Russell, J.T., Jr. 1928. A Summer of Prehistoric Research in the "Pays Civraisien." Bulle? tin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 4:9-17. 1929. Report on Field Work in France, Season of 1928. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research, 5:9-10. 1932. Report on Archeological Research in the Foothills of the Pyrenees. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 87( l l ) : l -5 . Rutot, A.L. 1900. Note sur la decouverte d'importants gisements de Silex Tailles. 103 pages. Bruxelles: Imprimeur de L'Academie Royale de Belgique. 1919. Un essai de reconstitution plastique des races humaines primitives. 172 pages. Bruxelles: Imprimeur de L'Academie Royale de Bel? gique. Sackett, J.R. 1981. From de Mortillet to Bordes: A Century of French Paleolithic Re? search. In G. Daniel, editor, Towards a History of Archaeology, pages 85-99. London: Thames and Hudson. 1991. Straight Archaeology French Style: The Phylogenetic Paradigm in Historic Perspective. In GA. Clark, editor, Perspectives on the Past, pages 109-139. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schultz, A.H. 1945. Ales Hrdlicka, 1869-1943. National Academy of Sciences Bio? graphical Memoirs, 23:305-338. Seton-Karr, H.W. 1896. Discovery of Evidences of the Palaeolithic Stone Age in Somaliland (Tropical Africa). Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 25:271- 275. 1906. Flint Implements of the Fayum, Egypt. Annual Report, U.S. Na? tional Museum, pages 747-751. Washington, D .C : Government Printing Office. Sieveking, A. 1987. A Catalogue of Palaeolithic Art in the British Museum. 228 pages. London: British Museum Publications. Sikes, N.E., R. Potts, and A.K. Behrensmeyer 1999. Early Pleistocene Habitat in Member 1 Olorgesailie Based on Paleo- sol Stable Isotopes. Journal of Human Evolution, 37:721-746. Simek, J. 1986. A Paleolithic Sculpture from the Abri Labattut in the American Mu? seum of Natural History Collection. Current Anthropology, 27(4):402-^107. Smith, A.C. 1868. Preface. In Some Account of the Blackmore Museum, pages iii-v. London: Bell and Daldy. Smith, P.E.L. 1966. Le Solutreen en France. 238 pages. Bordeaux: Delmas. Smithsonian Institution 1996. Guide to the Smithsonian Archives. 796 pages. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. Solecki, R.S. 1971. Shanidar: The First Flower People, xv+290 pages. New York: Knopf. Spencer, F. 1979. Ales Hrdlicka, M.D., 1869-1943: A Chronicle of the Life and Work of an American Physical Anthropologist. Unpublished doctoral dis? sertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1981. The Rise of Academic Physical Anthropology in the United States (1880-1980): A Historical Overview. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 56:353-364. 1982. Introduction. In F. Spencer, editor, A History of American Physical Anthropology 1930-1980, pages 1-10. New York: Academic Press. 1990. Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery, xxvi+272 pages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997. Hrdlicka, Ale? (1869-1943). In F. Spencer, editor, History of Physi? cal Anthropology, volume 1, pages 503-505. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Spencer, F , and F.H. Smith 1981. The Significance of Ales Hrdlicka's "Neanderthal Phase of Man:" A Historical and Current Assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 56:435-459. Stevens, E.T. 1870. Flint Chips: A Guide to Pre-historic Archaeology, as Illustrated by the Collection in the Blackmore Museum, Salisbury, xxxviii + 593 pages. London: Bell and Daldy. Stewart, T.D. 1940. The Life and Writings of Dr. Ales Hrdlicka. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26:3-40. 1958. First View of the Restored Shanidar I Skull. Sumer, 14:90-96. 1962. The Skull of Shanidar II. Sumer, 17:97-106. 1965. Shanidar Skeletons IV and VI. Sumer, 19:8-26. 1977. The Neanderthal Skeletal Remains from Shanidar Cave, Iraq: A Summary of Findings to Date. Proceedings of the American Philo? sophical Society, 121:121-165. 1981. Ales Hrdlicka, 1869-1943. American Journal of Physical Anthro? pology, 56:347-351. Stewart, T.D., and Spencer, F. 1978. Paris on the Potomac: Ales Hrdlicka's Vision of American Physical Anthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48:440. Straus, L.G 1985. La collection magnant: un temoin de la prehistoire Charentaise. Bul? letins et Memoires de la Societe Archeologique et Historique de la Charente, 1985, 1:21-34. 1991. Southwestern Europe at the Last Glacial Maximum. Current An? thropology, 32:189-199. 1994. The Abbe Henri Breuil: Pope of Paleolithic Prehistory. In J.A. Lasheras, editor, Homenaje al Dr. Joaquin Gonzalez Echegaray. Mu? seo y Centro de Investigacion de Altamira, Monografias, 17: 189-198. 1996. Hugo Obermaier and the Cantabrian Solutrean. In A. Moure, editor, El Hombre Fosil: 80 Ahos Despues, pages 195-209. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria. Tauxe, L., A. Deino, A.K. Behrensmeyer, and R. Potts 1992. Pinning Down the Brunhes/Matuyama and Upper Jaramillo Bound? aries: A Reconciliation of Orbital and Isoptopic Time Scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 109:561 -572. Tobias, P.V., and G.H.R. von Koenigswald 1964. A Comparison between the Olduvai Hominids and Those of Java and Some Implications for Hominid Phylogeny. Nature, 204:515-518. Trigger, B.G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought, xv+500 pages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trinkaus, E. 1982. A History of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens Paleontology in America. In F. Spencer, editor, A History of American Physical An? thropology 1930-1980, pages 261-280. New York: Academic Press. 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. xxiv+502 pages. New York: Academic Press. 1997. Shanidar (Iraq). In F. Spencer, editor, History of Physical Anthropol? ogy, volume 2, pages 925-927. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Trinkaus, E., and P. Shipman 1992. The Neandertals: Changing the Image of Mankind, xxiii+454 pages. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Ubelaker, D. 1997. Stewart, T(homas). Dale (1901- ). In F. Spencer, editor, History of Physical Anthropology, volume 2, pages 999-1001. New York: Gar? land Publishing, Inc. Van Riet Lowe, C. 1952. The Pleistocene Geology and Prehistory of Uganda, Part II: Prehis? tory. Geological Survey of Uganda, Memoir, 6: ix+ 113 pages. 148 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Colchester, England: Benham and Company Limited. Van Riper, A.B. 1993. Men among the Mammoths, xv+267 pages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vandiver, P.B., M.D. Petraglia, and R.B. Potts 1994. Analyses techniques de deux "Mortiers" du paleolithique superieur de La Madeleine, Dordogne, France. L 'Anthropologic, 98(4):674- 682. Washburn, W.E. 1978. The Cosmos Club of Washington: A Centennial History 1878-1978. 406 pages. Washington, D.C: The Cosmos Club. Wayland, E.J., and C. Burkitt 1932. The Magosian Culture of Uganda. Journal of the Royal Anthropo? logical Institute, 62:369-390. White, R. 1986a. Rediscovering French Ice Age Art. Nature, 320:683-684. 1986b. Dark Caves, Bright Visions: Life in Ice Age Europe. 176 pages. New York: American Museum of Natural History. 1988. Objects Magdaleniens provenant de L'Abri du Soucy (Dordogne): La collection de H.M. Ami au Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada. L'Anthropologic 92:29?40. White, R., and L.B. Breitborde, editors 1992. French Paleolithic Collections in the Logan Museum of Anthropol? ogy. Logan Museum Bulletin (New Series), 1(2): 367 pages. Willey, GR., and J.A. Sabloff 1993. A History of American Archaeology. Third edition, xiii+384 pages. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company. Wilson, T. n.d. Unpublished Manuscript, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution. 1888. Man in North America during the Palaeolithic Period. Annual Re? port, U.S. National Museum, pages 677-702. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1889. The Paleolithic Period in the District of Columbia. American An? thropologist, 2:235-240. 1890a. A Study of Prehistoric Anthropology: Handbook for Beginners. An? nual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 597-676. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1890b. The Smithsonian Institution and Its Anthropologic Work. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 19:509-515. 1890c. Results of an Inquiry as to the Existence of Man in North America during the Paleolithic Period of the Stone Age. Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 677-702. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1890d. Report on the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology in the U.S. National Museum, 1888. Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 123-138. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1891a. Anthropology at the Paris Exposition in 1889. In Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 641-680. Washington, D.C: Govern? ment Printing Office. 1891b. Report of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology in the U.S. National Museum, 1889. In Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 317-339. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1892a. Proposed Classification of the Section of Anthropology and Prehis? toric Archaeology at the Chicago Exposition. Special Publication of the U.S. National Museum. 40 pages. Washington, D.C: Govern? ment Printing Office. 1892b. Report of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology in the U.S. National Museum, 1891. In Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 183-198. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1893. Primitive Industry. Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, pages 521-534. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1894. The Swastika, the Earliest Known Symbol, and Its Migrations. An? nual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 757-1011. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1896. Prehistoric Art; or, the Origin of Art as Manifested in the Works of Prehistoric Man. Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 325-664. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1899a. Bluebeard: A Contribution to History and Folklore, xv+212 pages. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. 1899b. Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times. Annual Report, U.S. National Museum, pages 811-988, 65 plates. Washing? ton, D.C: Government Printing Office. Yellen, J.E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstruct? ing the Past, xvi+259 pages. New York: Academic Press. 1996. Behavioural and Taphonomic Patterning at Katanda 9: A Middle Stone Age Site, Kivu Province, Zaire. Journal of Archaeological Science, 6:915-932. 1998. Barbed Bone Points: Tradition and Continuity in Saharan and Sub- Saharan Africa. African Archaeological Review, 15:173-198. Yellen, J.E., A.S. Brooks, E. Cornelissen, M. Mehlman, and K. Stewart 1995. A Middle Stone Age Worked Bone Industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. Science, 268:553-556. Yellen, J.E., A.S. Brooks, R. Stuckenrath, and R. Welboume 1987. A Terminal Pleistocene Assemblage from Drotsky's Cave, Western Ngamiland, Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records, 19:1-6. Yochelson, E.L. 1990. The National Museum of Natural History: 75 Years in the Natural History Building. 216 pages. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Insti? tution Press. Yuan, B., Y. Hou, W. Wang, R. Potts, Z. Guo, and H. Huang 1999. On the Geomorphological Evolution of the Bose Basin, a Lower Pa? leolithic Locality in South China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 18:215-223. Zeni, D. 1998. Forgotten Empress: The Empress of Ireland Story. 224 pages. New Brunswick, Canada: Goose Land Editions. REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION Manuscripts intended for series publication receive substantive review (conducted by their originating Smithsonian museums or offices) and are submitted to the Smithsonian Institution Press with Form SI-36, which must show the approval of the appropriate authority designated by the sponsoring organizational unit. Requests for special treatment?use of color, foldouts, case-bound covers, etc.?require, on the same form, the added approval of the sponsoring authority. Review of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of all material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of the Press, acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and art. Copy must be prepared on typewriter or word processor, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper (not erasable), with 1 yW margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or xerox), in loose sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by original art. Minimum acceptable length is 30 pages. Front matter (preceding the text) should include: title page with only trite and author and no other information; abstract page with author, title, series, etc., following the established format; table of contents with indents reflecting the hierarchy of heads in the paper; also, foreword and/or preface, if appropriate. First page of text should carry the title and author at the top of the page; second page should have only the author's name and professional mailing address, to be used as an unnumbered footnote on the first page of printed text. Center heeds of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of major words, with extra space above and below the head, but no other preparation (such as all caps or underline, except for the underline necessary for generic and specific epithets). Run-in paragraph heads should use period/dashes or colons as necessary. Tabulations within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) can be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not contain rules or numbered table captions. Formal tables (numbered, with captions, boxheads, stubs, rules) should be submitted as carefully typed, double-spaced copy separate from the text; they will be typeset unless otherwise requested. If camera-copy use is anticipated, do not draw rules on manuscript copy. Taxonomic keys in natural history papers should use the aligned-couplet form for zoology and may use the multi-level indent form for botany. If cross referencing is required between key and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out taxa, using the same numbers with their corresponding heads in the text. Synonymy in zoology must use the short form (taxon, author, yearpage), with full reference at the end of the paper under literature Cited." For botany, the long form (taxon, author, abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no reference in "Literature Cited") is optional. Text-reference system (author, yearpage used within the text, wtth fun citation in "Literature Cited" at the end of the text) must be used in place of bibliographic footnotes in all Contributions Series and is strongly recommended in the Studies Series: "(Jones, 1010:122)" or "..Jones (1910:122)." If bibliographic footnotes are required, use the short form (author, brief title, page) with the full citation tn the bibliography. Footnotes, when few in number, whether annotative or biblio? graphic, should be typed on separate sheets and inserted immedi? ately after the text pages on which the references occur. Extensive notes must be gathered together and placed at the end of the text in a notes section. Bibliography, depending upon use, is termed "Literature Cited," "References," or "Bibliography." Spell out titles of books, articles, journals, and monographic series. For book and article titles use sentence-style capitalization according to the rules of the language employed (exception: capitalize all major words in English). For journal and series titles, capitalize the Initial word and all subsequent words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Transliterate languages that use a non-Roman alphabet according to the Library of Congress system. Underline (for italics) titles of journals and series and titles of books that are not part of a series. Use the parentheses/colon system for volume (number):pagination: "10(2):5-9." For alignment and arrangement of elements, follow the format of recent publications in the series for which the manuscript is intended. Guidelines for preparing bibliography may be secured from Series Section, SI Press. Legends for illustrations must be submitted at the end of the manuscript, with as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as convenient. Illustrations must be submitted as original art (not copies) accompanying, but separate from, the manuscript. Guidelines for preparing art may be secured from the Series Section, SI Press. AH types of illustrations (photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) may be intermixed throughout the printed text. They should be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively as they will appear in the monograph. If several illustrations are treated as components of a single composite figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration; also, in the legend and in text references the italic letters (underlined in copy) should be used: "Figure 9b." illustrations that are intended to follow the printed text may be termed Plates, and any components should be similarly lettered and referenced: "Plate 9b." Keys to any symbols within an illustation should appear on the art rather than in the legend. Some points of style: Do not use periods after such abbrevia? tions as "mm, ft, USNM, NNE." Spell out numbers "one" through "nine" in expository text, but use digits in ail other cases if possible. Use of the metric system of measurement is preferable; where use of the English system is unavoidable, supply metric equivalents in parentheses. Use the decimal system for precise measurements and relationships, common fractions for approximations. Use day/month/ year sequence for dates: "9 April 1976." For months in tabular listings or data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with no periods: "Jan, Mar, Jun." etc. Omit space between initials of a personal name: "J.B. Jones." Arrange and paginate sequentially every sheet of manuscript in the following order: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) contents, (4) foreword and/or preface, (5) text, (6) appendices, (7) notes section, (8) glossary, (9) bibliography, (10) legends, (11) tables. Index copy may be submitted at page proof stage, but plans for an index should be indicated when the manuscript is submitted.