Viewing page 90 of 137

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

was not in the earliest men, but is merely subjectively ascribed to them by the Indian orator. This, I think, is not quite expressed on p. 3 etc. So also on p. 4 the discovery of the stone knife is to be interpreted similarly; as well as the (narrated) development of clothing. The Orator was like our modern archaeologists (some of them) and  was as ready as they to tell you  how all these arts ought to have, and must have, arisen! But we had better take both with large allowances for the fact that [[underlined]] they were not there. [[/underlined]]

There is no other feature of your paper for which I could find anything but praise. The symbolism of the ceremonial garments is most valuable and places the mental status of the wearers in the clearest light.

The place of the moccasin in rites is quite new and very instructive. I remember Bogaert says of the wretched natives of Lower California that the only religious rite he observed they practiced was to put shoes on the feet of their dead.

I hope your article will soon be published. With best respects
Yours sincerely
D.G. Brinton