152 A M E R I C A N ANTHROPOLOGIST [N.s., 13.

1911

University of Michigan, and 1,500school-children of Ann Arbor, Mich.

The origin records are on file at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy, Phila-
delphia, Pa. Out of them Dr Bean has made an interesting and well-
illustrated book, even if one cannot agree with very many of the positions
he takes or the theories he advances. The reviewer for one is not yet
prepared to swear by the ear as the supreme court of racial anatomy.
One might perhaps say that the author’s material is better than his uses
of it.
ALEXANDER F. CHAhInERLAIN.

Philiflpine Studies. I . A Little Book of Filipino Riddles. Collected and edited

by FREDERICK STARR. Yonkers, New York: World Book Co., 1909. Pp. 133.
I n this little book Professor Starr gives us the native texts and transla-
tions, with explanations, etc., of 416Filipino (Tagal, Ilocan, Pangasinan,
Gaddang, Pampangan, Visayan, etc.) riddles, collected by him, chiefly
from school-boys belonging to various peoples of the islands in 1908.
In a n introduction (pp. 5-22) riddles in general and Filipino riddles in
particular are discussed in an interesting way. The distribution of
these riddles as to subjects is as follows: Animals (mammals), 1-13;
bell, 14-17; betel, 15-21;birds, 22-28; boats, 29-35; body (parts), 36-78;
book, 79-80; candle, 81-85; cardinal points, 86; clock (watch), 87-89;
coffin, 90; disease, 91-92: dress, 93-99; drinks, 100-101;egg, 102-104;’
fishes, 105-114; fruit, 115-143; furniture, 144;games, 145;greeting, 146;
hammock, 147-148;heavenly bodies, 149-163;hole, 164;house and parts,
165-177;implements, 178-196;insects aiid other invertebrates, 197-213;
lamp, 214-216; love, 217-222; mat, 223-225; mirror, 226; musical in-
struments, 227-229; nature elements, 230-232 ; number, 233;occupations
234-238; persons, 239-251 ; plants, 252-284; qualities, 285; relationship,
286-289; religious, 290-317; reptiles, etc., 318-326; road, 327-329;
shade, shadow. etc., 33c-335; smoking, 336; storm, sky, etc., 337-345;
stove, 346-352; time, 353-354; tools, 355-359; toy, 360-361 ; trunk,
362-363; umbrella, 364-365; utensils, etc., 366-393; vegetables, 394-40 j;
vision, 406; waves, 407; word-plays, 408-416. Many of these riddles
exhibit a curious combination of foreign (Spanish, Christian) iiifluence and
local coloring or adaptation. As Professor Starr indicates, our famous
“Humpty Dumpty” is represented by the Ilocan (p. 49, No. 102):
Yti papapugan ti Ari; no maluctan saan nga maisubli.
The lime-box of the king; if you open it you cannot restore it.
The answer is Itlog, “Egg.” The riddle of the “Pig” (No. 9,p. 27) is
siri generis and quite Oriental besides. Nos. 170 and 237 are markedly of
 BOOK REVIEWS I53
local origin. Professor Starr is of opinion that “ t h e true riddles in our
series are largely original Filipino, while the insoluble riddles, the catches,
the plays on words, are those where foreign influence is most evident
(p. 20).” Coarseness and stupidity characterize a considerable number
of Filipino riddles as they do likewise those of other peoples. The com-
monest form in which the Filipino riddle is cast is “two well-balanced
rhyming lines,’’ each line usually containing, from five to seven syllables.
Young people are the chief propagators of riddles among the Filipinos,
and they “are much in vogue when a young gentleman calls upon his
sweetheart.” With the Tagals and Pampangans “ the chief occasion
for giving bugtong (riddles) is when a little group are watching at night
beside a corpse.” The various Filipino peoples have diverse names for
riddles: Tagal and Pampangan bugtong; Bisayan tugmahanon; Pangasinan
boniqueio; Ilocan burburtia, etc. The author intends this interesting
little monograph to be the first number of a series of I ‘ Philippine Studies,”
each of which will treat independently of. a distinct and separate subject.
F. CHAMBERLAIN.
ALEXANDER

The Stone Age in North America. By WARRENK. MOOREHWD. Boston and

New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19x0. 2 vols. 8’ (price $5.00).
In these volumes the author has attempted to group the various
objects of stone, bone, shell, copper, etc., and to classify them according .
to his own conceptions; but, unfortunately, much irrelevant matter has
been included, and the pages are replete with inaccurate, misleading
statements, rendering the work, for all practical purposes, quite valueless.
Within the space of a brief review it will not be possible to refer to the
many paragraphs that challenge criticism, but i t will be well to under-
stand the author’s theories upon which the present work is based. On
page 4, volume I , is found this statement: “ I t has occurred to me that those
museum men who collect and study’ modern material more than the pre-
historic have not a clear perspective of the past in this country.” This
is the key to the whole work, and as a result of his adherence to this theory
and failure to “study modern material” he has erred in the identification
of certain objects. As an example, certain bone implements from a
“Mandan site in North Dakota” (vol. I I , p. 146 and p. I ~ I ) are
, identified
as “bone Celts . . . hollowed after the manner of Eastern stone gouges.”
Now as a matter of fact these are examples of the bone implements made
by the Chippewa and other northern tribes a t the present time, and
used by them in removing the flesh from the inner surface of hides,
during the process of tanning. Many examples are to be seen in museum