made by the one people from those made by the other. So true is
this that our best and most experienced archaeologists make no
attempt to separate them, except where the conditions under which
they are found furnish evidence for discrimination. Instead of
burdening these pages with proofs of these statements by reference
to particular finds and authorities, I call attention to the work
of Dr. C. C. Abbott on the handiwork in stone, bone, and clay of
the native races of the northern Atlantic sea board of America,
entitled "Primitive Industry." As the area embraced in this work,
as remarked by its author, "does not include any territory known
to have been permanently occupied by the so-called mound-
builders," the articles found here must be ascribed to the Indians
unless, as suggested by Dr. Abbott, some of a more primitive type
found in the Trenton gravel are to be attributed to an earlier and
still ruder people. Examining those of the first class, which are
ascribed to the Indians, we observe almost every type of stone
articles found in the mounds and mound area; not only the rudely
chipped scrapers, hoes, celts, knives, and spear and arrow heads,
but also the polished or ground celts, axes, hammers, and chisels,
or gouges.

Here we also find drills, awls, and perforators, slick stones and
dressers, pipes of various forms and finish, discoidal stones and
net sinkers, butterflys tones and other supposed ceremonial
objects, masks or face figures and bird-shaped stones, gorgets,
totems, pendants, trinkets, etc. Nor does the resemblance stop
with types, but it is carried down to specific forms and finish,
leaving absolutely no possible line of demarkation between these
and the similar articles attributed to the mound-builders. So
persistently true is this that had we stone articles alone to