[146] Livingstone, Missionary Travels and Researches in S. Africa (1857), p. 40.
[147] Lartet and Christy, Reliquiae Aquitanicae (London, 1865-75, passim).
[148] Wilde, Catalogue of the Antiquities of the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy (Dublin, 1863), vol. i. pp. 19-23.
[149] After having witnessed the process of fabricating flint arrow-heads, as re-discovered by Mr. Evans, I am able to understand why it is that the leaf-shaped form is of more frequent occurrence, and why this and the long-tanged forms are so often rougher and less finished than the other forms, the deep barbs and hollow base requiring much greater skill than the former.
[150] Burton, The City of the Saints (London, 1861), p. 146.
[151] Schoolcraft, Information concerning ... the Indian Tribes of the U.S.A. (Philadelphia, 1851-9), vol. i. p. 212.
[152] In the museum belonging to the Cork College, there is a Peruvian mummy, with which, amongst other articles, two of these arrow-pointed knives were found.
[153] Siebold, Nippon (Leiden, 1832-52), vol. i. pt. ii (Alte Waffen), Tab. xi.
[154] Evidence of this transition may be seen by examining any number of pattoo-pattoos. Some are sharp at the end; others are blunt at the end, but sharp at the side near the broadest part.
[155] Since this paper was read to the Royal United Service Institution, Sir John Lubbock has delivered a remarkably interesting series of lectures on savages, in the course of which he took exception to my classification of the Indian, African, and Australian boomerangs, under the same head; giving as his reason that the Australian boomerang has a return flight, whilst those of other nations have not that peculiarity. If it could be shown that the Australian weapon had been contrived for the purpose of obtaining a return flight, I should then agree with him in regarding the difference as generic. But the course of my investigations tends to show that this was probably an application of the weapon accidentally hit upon by the Australians, and that it arose from a modification of weight and form, so trivial as to prevent our regarding it as generically distinct from the others. I therefore consider the Australian weapon to be a mere variety of the implement which is common to the three continents. The difference between us on this point, though one of terms, is nevertheless important as a question of continuity. I am much gratified, however, to find my opinions on many other points supported by Sir John’s high authority.