A number of pearls or pearl beads from the Ohio mounds and which

formerly belonged to the Squier and Davis collection, are now in the

Blackmore Museum at Salisbury, England. According to a communication

from Dr. H. P. Blackmore, director of the museum, these pearls, which

originally formed five necklaces, have been much injured by the action

of fire at the time the bodies of those interred in the mounds were

burned. Mr. Blackmore considers that the greater part of the pearl beads

are of mother-of-pearl cut from some large shell, made into a round

shape and perforated, but, after very careful examination, he is of the

opinion that about ten may be classed as natural pearls. Their present

color is a dull, leaden gray, rather lighter than the “black pearl” of

commerce. The size of these pearls or beads varies from four millimeters

to twenty millimeters in diameter. One of the necklaces consists of

thirty-three beads well graduated, but of a dead white color from the

action of the earth.

A quarter of a century later, when the Centennial Exposition was in

preparation, the Smithsonian Institution undertook the formation of a

public exhibit illustrating American archæology, and engaged Prof. F. W.

Putnam, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to open and examine some of the

most remarkable of the mounds described by Squier and Davis. These

explorations were continued for some years, partly for the government

and partly for the Peabody Museum of Archæology at Cambridge, and their

results were exhibited at the Columbian Exposition in 1893. The mounds

explored were chiefly in the valley of the Little Miami, and

particularly those known as the Turner group.

A very important series of explorations was also carried on by Mr.

Warren K. Moorehead, covering the years from 1887 to 1893, largely in

preparation for the Columbian Exposition. These investigations were

mainly in the Scioto valley, in the counties of Ross, Franklin, and

Pickaway, Ohio. Among the most important results then obtained were

those from the mounds of the “Porter” and “Hopewell” groups, in Ross

County.

Since that time, much valuable work has been done by Mr. Moorehead and

others, and particularly under the auspices of the Ohio State

Archæological and Historical Society. The latest and most complete

investigation was made for this society in 1903, by its curator, Prof.

William C. Mills, in the Harness mound, seven miles north of

Chillicothe, Ohio, near the Scioto River, in Ross County. This locality

had been previously explored in part, by Professor Putnam in 1885, and

Mr. Moorehead in 1896; it was now systematically examined down to the

original surface at every point.

Squier and Davis divided these ancient monuments into four classes: (1)

Altar mounds, which contain what appear to be altars, and are also

called hearths, of stone or hardened clay; (2) Burial mounds, containing

human bones; (3) Temple mounds, with neither altars nor bones, but

seeming to have had some special religious significance; and (4)

Anomalous mounds, including “mounds of observation” and others of mixed

or uncertain character. The burials are found to be of two kinds, simple

interment and cremation; and these are sometimes met with in the same

mound.

This classification has been generally followed in describing these

ancient structures, although the whole subject is obscure and difficult,

from our ignorance of the purposes and conditions of their formation. In

many of the mounds of the first two classes especially, not only have

pearls been found, but quantities of interesting and remarkable objects,

many of which have been brought from distant points, and prove clearly

the existence of an extensive intertribal commerce at a remote period.

Galena from Illinois and Wisconsin, mica from North Carolina, obsidian

from beyond the Rocky Mountains, and sea-shells from the Gulf coast, are

among these objects, and particularly native copper from Lake Superior,

from which many articles were fashioned by hammering. Pearls are

extremely abundant, and were at first supposed to have been brought from

the coast, and may have been the pearls of the common clam and the

common oyster, the pearls being found in opening the mollusks for food;

but the recent development of pearl hunting in the western rivers, where

the fresh-water mussels (Unios) are so abundant and produce such

beautiful pearls, shows that these treasures were undoubtedly gathered,

partly, if not wholly, in the region where the mounds exist. The

enormous numbers found are, indeed, no source of surprise, as such

quantities of pearls have been obtained, for over twenty years past,

from the same regions. The mollusks are still abundant in all the

streams of the Mississippi Valley, except where they have been reduced

or exterminated by the reckless methods of pearl hunting employed where

the “pearl fever” has prevailed.

It is quite possible that the fresh-water Unios were not sought for

their pearls alone, but were also used as food, and perhaps as bait for

fishing. They were evidently gathered in great quantities, as is shown

by the old heaps of shells found along the banks of streams at many

points; and doubtless there are multitudes of such heaps that have never

been observed. They are known as far north as Idaho, as communicated by

Dr. Robert N. Bell, State mineralogist, and they extend still farther

north, as noted by Dr. Harlan I. Smith, in his “Preliminary Notes on the

Archæology of the Yakima Valley.”[541] He says: “Small heaps of

fresh-water clam-shells were examined, but these being only about five

feet in diameter and as many inches in depth, are hardly to be compared

to the immense shell-heaps of the coast.”

These Unio shell-heaps are frequent in the South, and some of the

Spanish chroniclers of De Soto’s expedition in 1540–1541, describe the

gathering and cooking of the mussels, and the finding of occasional

pearls therein. The same writers also give glowing accounts of the

pearls possessed by the natives. Some of these accounts may be

exaggerated, but they cannot be wholly so. It would seem that some of

the pearls may have come from marine shells, and others from those of

the rivers and streams; but there are few pearl-producing shells on our

own coasts, and it is not very likely that there was any trade or

intercourse with the West Indian Islands, where marine pearls occur

freely.

Albert H. Pickett, in his “History of Alabama,” refers to the accounts

of De Soto’s historian, Garcilasso de la Vega, and holds that the pearls

which he noted were evidently from the Unios of Alabama. “Heaps of

mussel shells,” he says, “are now to be seen on our river banks wherever

Indians used to live. They were much used by the ancient Indians for

some purpose, and old warriors have informed me that their ancestors

once used the shells to temper the clay with which they made their

vessels. But as thousands of the shells lie banked up, some deep in the

ground, we may also suppose that the Indians in De Soto’s time,

everywhere in Alabama, obtained pearls from them. There can be no doubt

about the quantity of pearls found in this State and Georgia in 1540,

but they were of a coarser and more valueless kind than the Spaniards

supposed. The Indians used to perforate them and string them around

their necks and arms like beads.”[542]

The use of fragments of these shells in tempering the clay for pottery,

alluded to in the preceding paragraph, is well known. Prof. Daniel S.

Martin describes an old village site in South Carolina, near the

Congaree River, a few miles south of the city of Columbia, where the

ground had been plowed, and along the furrows the soil was gleaming with

brilliant pearly fragments of Unio shells, intermingled with bits of

pottery.

Mr. Clarence B. Moore discovered pearls pierced for stringing in several

of the mounds at Moundville, Alabama. He also found a sheet-copper

pendant, elongated oval in outline, with an excised repoussé decoration,

embracing a swastika within a circle, and a triangle. This pendant,

which lay near the skull of burial No. 132, bears a perforated pearl

nearly seven millimeters in diameter and weighing about nine grains; it

is fastened to the pendant by a piece of vegetable fiber that passes

through the pearl. With another burial (No. 162), the skeleton of an

adult, was an elliptical gorget of sheet-copper decorated with a

pearl.[543] In a personal communication Mr. Moore states that all the

pearls found by him in the mounds were very much disintegrated by the

lapse of time; he also writes that he has never found any shells

immediately with the pearls, although masses of Unio shells were often

met with in the mounds. He believes the shell-fish had been used for

food.

Unio shell-heaps exist likewise on the shores of the inland lakes of

Florida, and in middle Georgia and Alabama; and several of them on the

banks of the Savannah River, above Augusta, are fully described by

Colonel Charles C. Jones.[544] He says: “In these relic-beds no two

parts of the same shell are, as a general rule, found in juxtaposition.

The hinge is broken, and the valves of the shell, after having been

artificially torn asunder, seem to have been carelessly cast aside and

allowed to accumulate.”

Thus, in addition to the historical evidence, physical proof is abundant

of the pearl fisheries of the aboriginal tribes of the South. In order

to ascertain the precise varieties of shells from which the southern

Indians obtained their pearls, Colonel Jones invited an expression of

opinion from a number of scientists whose studies rendered them familiar

with the conchology of the United States. Their responses throw

considerable light upon this inquiry, though with some curious

variation.

Prof. William S. Jones, of the University of Georgia, says that he has

seen small pearls in many of the Unios found in that State.

Prof. Jeffries Wyman, on the other hand, after a careful and extensive

series of excavations in the shell-heaps of Florida, failed to find a

single pearl. “It is hardly probable,” he remarks, “that the Spaniards

could have been mistaken as to the fact of the ornaments of the Indians

being pearls, but in view of their frequent exaggerations, I am almost

compelled to the belief that there was some mistake; and possibly they

may not have distinguished between the pearls and the shell beads, some

of which would correspond with the size and shape of the pearls

mentioned by the Spaniards.”

Prof. Joseph Jones, whose investigations throw much valuable light upon

the contents of the ancient tumuli of Tennessee, says: “I do not

remember finding a genuine pearl in the many mounds which I have opened

in the valleys of the Tennessee, the Cumberland, the Harpeth, and

elsewhere. Many of the pearls described by the Spaniards were probably

little else than polished beads cut out of large sea-shells and from the

thicker portions of fresh-water mussels, and prepared so as to resemble

pearls. I have examined thousands of these, and they all present a

laminated structure, as if carved out of thick shells and sea conchs.”

This point will be referred to again.

Dr. Charles Rau[545] writes: “I learned from Dr. Samuel G. Bristow, who

was a surgeon in the Army of the Cumberland during the Civil War, that

mussels of the Tennessee River were occasionally eaten ‘as a change’ by

the soldiers of that corps, and pronounced no bad article of diet.

Shells of the Unio are sometimes found in Indian graves, where they had

been deposited with the dead, to serve as food during the journey to the

land of spirits.”

Dr. Brinton saw on the Tennessee River and its tributaries numerous

shell-heaps consisting almost exclusively of the _Unio virginianus_

(Lamarck). In every instance he found shell-heaps close to the

water-courses, on the rich alluvial bottom-land. He says: “The mollusks

had evidently been opened by placing them on a fire. The Tennessee

mussel is margaritiferous, and there is no doubt but that it was from

this species that the early tribes obtained the hoards of pearls which

the historian of De Soto’s exploration estimated by bushels, and which

were so much prized as ornaments.”[546]

A source has recently been pointed out whence small pearls, and perhaps

some fine specimens, could have been obtained by the Indians of Florida,

and in considerable quantities. In the Unios of some of the fresh-water

lakes of that State, there were found not less than 3000 pearls, most of

them small, but many large enough to be perforated and worn as beads.

From one Unio there were taken eighty-four seed-pearls; from another,

fifty; from a third, twenty, and from several, ten or twelve each. The

examinations were chiefly confined to Lake Griffin and its vicinity. It

is said that upon one of the isles in Lake Okeechobee are the remains of

an old pearl fishery, and it is proposed to open the shells of this

lake, which are large, in hopes of finding pearls of superior size and

quality.

The use of the pearl as an ornament by the southern Indians, and the

quantities of shells opened by them in various localities, make it seem

strange that it is not more frequently met with in the relic-beds and

sepulchral tumuli of that region; but, after exploring many shell- and

earth-mounds, Colonel Charles C. Jones failed, except in a few

instances, to find pearls.[547] A few were obtained in an extensive

relic-bed on the Savannah River, above Augusta, the largest being four

tenths of an inch in diameter, but all of them blackened by fire. Many

of the smaller mounds on the coast of Georgia do not contain pearls,

because at the period of their construction the custom of burning the

dead appears to have prevailed very generally; hence, it may be that the

pearls were either immediately consumed or so seriously injured as to

crumble out of sight.

This absence of pearls tends somewhat to confirm the opinion that beads

made from the thicker portions of shells that were carved, perforated,

and brilliant with nacre, were regarded by the imaginative Spaniards as

pearls. More minute investigation, however, will doubtless reveal the

existence of pearls in localities where the pearl-bearing shells were

collected. Perforated pearls have been found in an ancient

burying-ground located near the bank of the Ogeechee River, in Bryan

County, Georgia; and many years ago, after a heavy freshet on the Oconee

River, which laid bare many Indian graves in the neighborhood of the

large mounds on Poullain’s plantation, fully a hundred pearls of

considerable size were gathered.

It seems quite clear that many of the pearls reported by the early

Spanish voyagers were really such, although it is well known also that

shell beads have been found in mounds in connection with pearls; but the

numbers found in Ohio, by Professor Putnam, Mr. Moorehead, and others,

leave no room for doubt in this matter. That the Indians of the South

also had these pearls, both drilled and undrilled, is beyond question.

The same fact comes to view, however, in these various accounts, that

has been alluded to already, _viz._, that the use of pearls among the

aborigines appears to have been local, and probably tribal. All the

fresh waters of North America contain Unios, especially in the

Mississippi basin and in the South, and all the Unios are more or less

pearl-bearing; but it is only at certain points that pearls are found

deposited in ancient graves, sometimes, however, in extraordinary

quantities.

Father Louis Hennepin relates that the Indians along the Mississippi

wore bracelets and earrings of fine pearls, which they spoilt, having

nothing to bore them with but fire. He adds: “They gave us to understand

that they received them in exchange for their calumets from nations

inhabiting the coast of the great lake to the southward, which I take to

be the Gulph of Florida.”[548]

The statement here made, that the Indians perforated their pearls only

“with fire,” evidently refers to the use of a heated copper wire, or

point, as mentioned by Pickett and others of the early explorers. This

point is of importance, as apparently indicating a marked difference

between the Indians met with by the first European visitors, and the

mound-building people of an earlier time, among whom the perforation was

made with small stone drills. On this point, a recent letter from Prof.

Wm. C. Mills, who has conducted the very full exploration of the Harness

mound in Ohio, is of interest. He describes the small and

carefully-wrought flint drills, which he found, and believes to have

been made and used for this purpose. In size and form they answer all

requirements; they are delicate little implements, somewhat T-shaped or

gimlet-shaped, an inch and a quarter long; the narrow boring part is

about an inch in length and tapers from one eighth of an inch to quite a

fine point; the wider upper end is abruptly expanded into the transverse

handle, which is about a quarter of an inch thick, _i.e._, lengthwise of

the instrument, and half an inch in span, _i.e._, across, so as to give

a good hold for the fingers to rotate the drill, just as in an ordinary

gimlet.

Passing now to the actual discoveries of pearls in the mounds of the

Mississippi Valley, these will be reviewed in the order of the

successive explorations in which they were made known. As already

stated, the only region where any large amounts have been encountered,

is that of the Scioto and Miami valleys in Ohio. Even here, pearls are

found only at certain points, and though the numbers are great, the

graves which contain them are few. They were apparently buried only with

the remains of individuals of especial distinction, probably either

chiefs or eminent medicine men. The accounts of recent explorations in

these mounds bring to mind very forcibly the statement before cited from

Captain John Smith, as to Powhatan’s treasure-house, where all his most

valued articles, including pearls, were collected and kept, in

preparation for his death and burial. Pearls appear also to have been

used only by the more cultured tribes, and were kept in the larger and

more prosperous communities exclusively. They are confined to the great

“mound groups,” and are not found in isolated mounds. The tumuli of

northern Ohio, the hill mounds, and the village sites along the smaller

streams, have yielded practically none.

According to the manner of burial, the pearls vary greatly in their

present condition. Where they have been placed with cremated bodies,

they are, of course, much damaged, being blackened and largely

decomposed. Otherwise, although injured in color and luster, the mere

fact of burial in the ground has not entirely ruined them. They are

generally perforated, so as to be strung or attached to garments, and

traces of both these methods of use are sometimes clearly shown.

The term “pearl beads,” often employed by writers, is uncertain in

meaning; as it may refer either to actual pearls, bored so as to be

strung, or to imitations thereof made from pearly shell. With regard to

this point, although such quantities have been obtained, there seems to

have been very little close examination as to their structure, which

would at once indicate the facts, according as the minute layers of the

pearly material are concentric or not. The only distinct testimony is

that we have cited above from Prof. Joseph Jones,[549] who states that

he has examined large numbers, and found them to be apparently cut from

shells. He makes the suggestion that they may have been carved from the

thicker portions of the fresh-water Unios. This is not only probable,

but would go far to solve the mystery of the enormous numbers found, as

compared with anything known of the yield of genuine pearls by these

mollusks, even with all the pearl hunting of recent years. An

interesting fact bearing directly on this question is the discovery in

the Taylor mound, at Oregonia, Warren County, Ohio, of several Unio

shells in which had been made a circular hole, two thirds of an inch in

diameter, either for some ornamental use of the shell or to extract

pieces to be shaped into beads. These may have been made in either of

two ways. Firstly, by breaking pieces of the shell from one of the

valves, as a lapidary “roughs out” a piece of gem material before he

begins to grind it into shape; or, secondly, by cutting out a circular

disk of shell by means of a hollow copper drill or a hollow reed, just

as they perforated hard pieces of quartz or granite for pipes, or as

they trephined circular disks from the skulls. Decorated disks of Unio

shell were also found in the same mound. If the ancient people made

beads in this manner, there is little difficulty in accounting for the

quantities described, especially in connection with the evident

gathering of Unios on a large scale, as shown by the widely distributed

shell-heaps already described. They certainly did make beads from

various marine shells, and these are found with the pearl beads in many

of the mounds, as particularly noted by Professor Jones, cited above,

and by others.

In the recent exploration of the Harness mound, by Professor Mills, a

very curious discovery was made of imitation pearls of a kind never

before met with; these were made of clay, modeled apparently after the

larger natural pearls associated with them, and after being baked hard,

had been “covered with a flexible mica,” so as to resemble pearls.[550]

The mica was a silvery mica that may have been burned and would

pulverize into a gray powder with a pearly luster, as almost all micas

are too resilient to be attached in any other way.

Taking up now the history of pearl discovery in the mounds, the first

definite record goes back to about 1844, when perforated pearls were

found by Dr. Edwin H. Davis[551] on the hearths of five distinct groups

of mounds in Ohio, and sometimes in such abundance that they could be

gathered by the hundred. They were generally of irregular form, mostly

pear-shaped, though perfectly round ones were also found among them. The

smaller specimens measured about one fourth of an inch in diameter, but

the largest had a diameter of three quarters of an inch.

The next great discovery of these Unio pearls was in the Porter group of

mounds, in the Little Miami Valley, explored by Prof. Frederick W.

Putnam, and Dr. Charles L. Metz, who procured over 60,000 pearls, nearly

two bushels, drilled and undrilled, undoubtedly of Unio origin; all of

them, however, decayed or much altered, and of no commercial value. In

1884 these scientists examined the Marriott mound, where they found

nearly one hundred Unio shells, and among other objects of special

interest six canine teeth of bears, that were perforated by a lateral

hole near the edge at the point of greatest curvature of the root, so

that by passing a cord through this, the tooth could be fastened to any

object or worn as an ornament. Two of these teeth had a hole bored

through near the end of the root on the side opposite the lateral

perforation, and the hole countersunk in order to receive a large

spherical pearl, about three eighths of an inch in diameter. When the

teeth were found, the pearls were in place, although chalky from decay.

Upward of 250 pearl beads were found here, concerning which they say:

“The pearl beads found in the several positions mentioned are natural

pearls, probably obtained from the several species of Unios in the Ohio

rivers. In size they vary from one tenth of an inch to over half an inch

in diameter, and many are spherical. They are neatly drilled, and the

larger from opposite sides. These pearls are now chalky, and crumble on

handling, but when fresh they would have formed brilliant necklaces and

pendants.”[552]

[Illustration:

Necklace of fresh-water pearls and cut shell beads, from Mound No. 25

]

[Illustration:

Bear-tooth inlaid with fresh-water pearl from the neck of skeleton No.

209, Mound 23

]

[Illustration:

Perforation in charred, cut fresh-water pearl; weight, 5569 grams

]

[Illustration:

Perforated fresh-water pearl; weight, 22,955 grams

]

FRESH-WATER PEARLS FROM HOPEWELL GROUP OF MOUNDS, ROSS COUNTY, OHIO

It is easy to see, even at a glance, that most of those in this great

deposit of 60,000 are true pearls. Many are very irregular in form, and

quite a number are the elongated, somewhat feather-shaped, “hinge

pearls,” that are found in the region of the hinge teeth of Unios. A

large and interesting exhibit of these is shown in the Field Museum of

Natural History, Chicago. But thousands of spherical pearls were also

obtained, from the “altars” or “hearths” of mounds belonging to the

first division of Squier and Davis’s classification, above noted. From

the Turner group, in Clermont County, in the Little Miami Valley,

Professor Putnam obtained for the Peabody Museum as much as half a

bushel of pearls of this character. As these had been exposed to fire,

nearly all were blackened, some cracked, and all greatly impaired.[553]

The next great series of explorations were those conducted by Mr. W. K.

Moorehead in the Scioto Valley, in the counties of Ross, Franklin and

Pickaway, Ohio. He opened and examined a number of mounds, and found

pearls or pearl beads in ten or twelve of them, but the larger deposits

were confined to certain limited districts, which seem to have been

occupied by tribes more advanced in culture and in traffic than the

rest. In these, the pearls and also objects of other kinds brought from

a distance, are principally found. The scattered mounds, not associated

with any village or community sites, have few of these valuable objects.

But even where they are found freely, pearls were apparently used or

possessed by only a few individuals. Mr. Moorehead investigated in all

117 burial mounds, containing about 1400 skeletons. Pearls were met with

in only seven of these mounds, and in connection with but twenty-two

skeletons. These, however, yielded a total of 2600 pearls, apparently

from Unios, the numbers found with single skeletons varying from 18 to

602, an average of 118. It thus appears that in Mr. Moorehead’s

researches, pearls were found in about one mound out of seventeen, and

in these, with about one skeleton out of eight.

From “altar mounds,” pearls have been in some cases taken in vast

numbers. Professor Putnam’s discoveries are mentioned above; and Mr.

Moorehead obtained tens of thousands from two altars or hearths in the

Hopewell group, which will be described hereafter.

When found in the burial mounds with skeletons, pearls are generally

seen to have been placed at the wrists or ankles, or about the neck, or

in the mouth. Sometimes they are found on copper plates, and

occasionally they show evidence of having been sewn or attached to a

garment. Particulars on these points will be given further on. Mr.

Moorehead has also found bears’ teeth, set with pearls, as Putnam and

Metz did in the Marriott mound, lying with or near skeletons.

In the case of the altar mounds, there seems to have been a different

procedure, not a burial, but a great funeral sacrifice in honor of some

very distinguished person, in which treasures of every kind, including

great stores of pearls, were consumed, or meant to be. Of this, Mr.

Moorehead says, in a letter to the author: “In the case of all altar

offerings, a fire had been kindled ... and all these things were heaped

upon it. They were utterly ruined, save a few; ... those at the top were

not so much affected as those at the bottom.”

Mr. Moorehead’s investigations already mentioned were in the years 1888

to 1891 inclusive; he next took up especially the remarkable Hopewell

groups of mounds, in 1891–1892, and explored these extensively for the

archæological exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, at

Chicago.[554] This was his most important and elaborate investigation,

and will be described in some detail. In 1896, he made a partial

exploration of the Harness mound near Chillicothe, which has been fully

completed more recently by Prof. William C. Mills, and will also be

described further on.

The investigations made in the Hopewell group of mounds were recorded by

Mr. Moorehead in a series of articles in the “Antiquarian.”[555] He

gives a general account of the remarkable region of ancient remains in

Ross County, Ohio. The State archæological map shows the “mound belt,”

as a strip of country some fifteen miles wide and one hundred miles

long, extending through the Scioto Valley, from about Columbus to

Portsmouth. The ancient works noted on this map, though not all that

exist there, yet number over 900 mounds, 24 village sites, 36 circles of

earth and stone, 87 other inclosures and works of similar character, and

31 sites of gravel or kame burials. Five groups of mounds in particular

exist in Ross County, all of them showing a “high culture” state. “All

of the lower Scioto Valley,” says Mr. Moorehead, “was occupied by a

mound-building tribe ranking higher in intelligence and numerically

stronger than that of any other section of the whole Ohio region.” Among

the many remarkable ancient works in that part of the country, the five

groups in Ross County are the most important, and among these, the

Hopewell group is preëminent. The first published notice of them, which

appeared in 1820, was by Mr. Caleb Atwater.[556] Squier and Davis

examined and described them in the years 1844–1846, and obtained large

and notable collections from them which are now in England, in the

Blackmore Museum at Salisbury, as not enough interest in such matters

then existed in America to induce the purchase and retention of these

valuable treasures. From that time until 1891, when Mr. Moorehead began

his explorations there, no one had paid much attention to these mounds,

all published accounts being derived from those of Squier and Davis.

They described them under the name of Clark’s works, from the owner of

the farm within which they lie; but the property has since passed into

the possession of Mr. M. C. Hopewell. From this fact, yet more from his

kind and intelligent interest in the work of exploration, his name has

been given to the group.

The Hopewell works are situated on the north fork of Paint Creek, about

one third of a mile from the stream. The intervening space is low

bottom-land, and the works stand upon a terrace about twenty feet high,

from which again there is a rather steep rise of thirty or forty feet

more, to the general level of the country. They consist of a nearly

quadrangular inclosure, about half a mile in length (strictly 2800

feet), and half as much in width, occupying the entire breadth of the

terrace. At its eastern end, this large inclosure opens into a second

and smaller one, an exact square of 850 feet. Within the main inclosure

are one or more village sites, a number of separate mounds, and

especially a group of several connected elevations, together known as

the Effigy mound, these being much the highest and most conspicuous, and

themselves surrounded by a semicircular inclosure. The whole suggests a

defensive work, or “walled town”; but the wall, although strongly and

carefully built, partly of stones and partly of hard clay, is so

low—only from four to six feet in height—that it could not have been a

very formidable obstacle to a vigorous assault; and, moreover, the whole

is overlooked and “commanded” from the bluff above it. The mounds, as

Squier and Davis examined them, were pronounced to be mainly of the

sacrificial or “altar” type. Since their very full and accurate account

was published, time and the hand of man have reduced and almost

obliterated portions of the wall and some of the smaller mounds, while

the creek has slightly shifted its course. When they wrote their

description, it was a little nearer than it is now; and they then

expressed the belief that it had formerly washed the base of the terrace

where the works are located.

Mr. Moorehead’s exploring party, aided by Dr. H. T. Cresson, began

operations at this notable group of mounds in August, 1891, and

continued them through about seven months, without interruption, much of

the time in severe winter weather. The work was carried on under

authority of the Anthropological Department of the Columbian Exposition

of 1893, at Chicago. All the most interesting and important of the very

extensive body of relics obtained was displayed there; and the whole

remains as a permanent exhibit in the Field (Columbian) Museum of

Natural History.

The Hopewell group comprises in all some twenty larger and smaller

mounds within the general inclosure, besides a few unimportant ones

outside of it, and the main connected group in the special inclosure

near the center. These latter form together what is known as the Effigy

mound, a name based upon its general resemblance to a reclining human

figure; but it is not constructed on a human or animal design, as are

the effigy mounds properly so called. After working for a time upon some

of the others, and finding much interesting material, Mr. Moorehead set

his men to work upon the Effigy mound, and spent most of his time and

effort upon that remarkable structure, of which he made a very thorough

and systematic exploration.

The Effigy mound is about 500 feet long and 220 feet wide, and rises 23

feet above the general surface at its highest point. It proves to belong

to the fourth class of Squier and Davis, those of mixed character, with

both altars and burials, as it contained three large altars and as many

as 175 skeletons, nearly all of adults.

Reviewing now the entire exploration of the Hopewell group, the first

mound opened, known as No. 17, was of considerable size, nearly ninety

feet in diameter, and was notable for a layer of mica—some 3000

sheets—that extended almost entirely through it. It contained a rude

altar, with ashes and bones, some copper implements, bone needles,

sharks’ teeth, and nearly 200 pounds of bright galena. The next

examined, No. 18, contained several decayed skeletons, and a good

example of an “altar,” together with ornaments cut from human skulls.

The next, No. 19, had an altar of earth, partially hardened by heat,

which was taken out entire and boxed. It was roughly cubical, about

three feet each way. In the “bowl,” or concavity, on the top of it, were

various minor implements, with some galena and mica, etc. The next

attacked was a large mound, No. 2, which had been partly opened by

Squier and Davis, nearly fifty years before. It is remarkable for its

immense store of roughly chipped flint disks, over 8000 in number, of

which 600 were taken out by Squier and Davis, and most of the remainder

by Mr. Moorehead. It would seem to have been a place of storage for

partly worked material of this kind, to preserve it from the hardening

effect of long exposure to the air.

Several other mounds yielded little of importance, save that from the

soil on the site of No. 1, which had been obliterated, were taken a

number of fragments of bone, curiously ornamented with finely carved

patterns. Two others, Nos. 4 and 5, had peculiarly constructed altars,

of which an extended account is given.

The first discovery of pearls by Squier and Davis was made in their

mound No. 9, now obliterated by a railroad. With the pearls, they report

as found on the top of a small altar, broken instruments of obsidian,

cut patterns of mica, vestiges of cloth, etc.

Mr. Moorehead’s first discovery of pearls was in a small but interesting

mound, No. 20, about forty feet in diameter. It had been reduced by

plowing to only some two feet in height; and its contents would ere long

have been broken into and scattered by the same process. This was

strictly a burial mound, and soon yielded five skeletons, one of them

being that of a child, nine or ten years of age. With these bones were

numerous objects: two large shells made into cups for drinking, several

copper articles and ornaments, among them a broad copper bracelet

encircling the right wrist, and several hundred pearl and shell beads

and small shells. The same mound yielded later some other children’s

remains, but with no important objects. A finely polished pipe and two

bear’s teeth coated with copper were also found.

Mr. Moorehead points out the evidences of a long occupation of this site

by a cultured tribe, who had commerce with the South and West more than

with the North or East.

Work was then begun, in the latter part of September, on a large and

important mound known as the Oblong (No. 23), 155 feet long by 100 feet

wide, with an elevation at present of 14 feet, and originally of perhaps

20 feet. This mound yielded thirty-nine skeletons, lying at depths

varying from eight and three fourths to eleven feet below the present

surface, nearly on the base-line of the mound. Some of these were

surrounded by boulders, others were much charred, and a good deal of

variety exists in their condition, all of which Mr. Moorehead describes

particularly. All manner of relics and objects were obtained, including

pearl beads and a splendid copper ax of seventeen pounds’ weight, of

course entirely too large for any practical use, and hence plainly a

ceremonial object or badge of some high distinction. Among the most

remarkable of the many interesting objects discovered here were the

large canine teeth of bears,[557] which had not only been drilled

through near the base of the root for suspension, like many others, but

had also been partly drilled at the middle of one side, and a large

pearl inserted into the cavity. These singular ornaments were found at

the neck of a skeleton, and had evidently been worn as pendants. It will

be remembered that almost identical specimens were found by Professor

Putnam in the Marriott mound in the Miami Valley.[558] The one here

figured is now in the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, with

most of the other Hopewell material.

Another somewhat similar example of the taste and art of the same

people, also preserved in the Field Museum, came from the mound known as

No. 25. This consisted of a large figure of a bird, in hammered copper,

fifteen and seven eighths inches long, with a pearl inserted to form the

eye. The head is quite expressive, and the tail-feathers well

represented, although the wings and the general proportions are rude.

This is shown about one third of the actual length.

The Effigy mound was next examined. The first trial shafts proved it to

be evidently of human construction, and not of glacial origin, as some

had supposed. One or two open cuts were then begun, using teams with a

large shovel until indications of burials were found, when the further

work would be carried on by hand, with extreme care.

After about two weeks, in which time several skeletons were unearthed,

with some shells, beads, and copper ornaments, a burial of extraordinary

character was reached on November 14. Here was lying a skeleton which

the newspapers soon reported as “The King of the Mound-Builders.” It was

much decayed, but was covered and surrounded with a wealth of relics.

The skull was surmounted by a tall cap or helmet of copper, from which

extended a wonderful pair of antlers, exactly imitating those of a deer,

but made of wood and covered with copper. The whole skeleton, to quote

the words of Mr. Moorehead, “glittered with mica, pearl, shell, and

copper.” Plates of the latter were above, beneath, and around it, with

bears’ and panthers’ teeth, etc., and over 1000 beads, many of them of

pearl. The succeeding month, during which the last cut was finished down

to the base-line, and a third one much advanced, revealed numerous

skeletons, with abundant objects of the same general kind, including a

remarkable separate deposit of copper articles of curious workmanship,

ornaments of cut mica, and one of cannel coal, fragments of meteoric

iron and celts made therefrom, and “many thousand pearl and shell

beads.” The latest trophy here unearthed was another enormous ax of

copper, nearly two feet in length, unparalleled in the world.

The first altar was next reached; it was about four by five feet, and

some six inches deep, and had an immense variety of objects upon it and

around it, nearly all entirely ruined by the fire. Among them were pearl

beads.

The largest altar had been not only heaped with all sorts of valuables,

but they had been piled around it so as to form a sloping mass of twelve

feet or more in diameter at the base. Among these was a layer of mica

plates of extraordinary size, eighteen or twenty inches in diameter. It

is not easy even now to obtain sheets of mica of such dimensions, in any

quantity. Carvings and effigies in bone and slate, rock crystal

arrow-heads, obsidian knives, etc., etc., damaged and broken by heat,

were cemented together by half-melted copper. The pearl and shell beads

taken out amid the ashes are estimated at not less than 100,000.

The Effigy mound, “a place for ceremony, for sacrifice, for burial,” as

Mr. Moorehead calls it, thus combining the character of the first three

classes distinguished by Squier and Davis, is seen not to have been

constructed at one time, but to have developed gradually through perhaps

a long period. The several altars, the more important burials, the store

of copper objects, each was surmounted by a small and separate mound.

“These may have been built on the level dance or ceremonial floors, from

time to time. When the entire floor was covered, the people brought

large quantities of earth and gravel, heaped it on top of the irregular

contour of the small mounds, and this formed the present Effigy.”

The population that occupied the main inclosure was apparently not very

large, as compared with some other of the important earthworks, such as

Fort Ancient, or Madisonville. From the distribution of village-site

debris, Mr. Moorehead estimates that there could have been only from two

hundred to three hundred lodges, even if these were all occupied at the

same time. But the indications of traffic and of art show that it must

have been a community advanced in culture beyond most of its neighbors.

Mr. Moorehead believes it to have been a sort of capital among a body of

allied or affiliated tribes who made and occupied the similar earthwork

towns of the “mound belt,”—a center of production and distribution of

art objects, and a place for the holding of great religious ceremonials.

It may be noted, however, that the art was developed in certain

directions and not in others wherein it might be expected. In hammered

copper-work and in drilling, it was most remarkable, in the latter

extending even to the perforation of quartz crystals, but of pottery

there is little, and that not very choice—a striking contrast to the

abundant and elaborately ornamental potter’s art of the tribes in the

Southwest.

Tonti, the historian of La Salle’s expedition, in the eighteenth

century, states that La Salle actually saw mound-dwellers among southern

tribes of Indians, living very much as the Ohio mound-builders must have

done, and quite untouched as yet by any contact with the whites. Tonti

describes the dwellings, made of sun-dried mud and with dome-shaped

roofs of cane; two of them were larger and better constructed than the

rest, one the chief’s house and the other a temple, both about forty

feet square. The latter held the bones of deceased chieftains, and was

surmounted by three rude, wooden eagles. In the center was apparently “a

kind of altar,” where was maintained a perpetual fire of logs, watched

by two aged men. A recess, to which strangers were not admitted,

contained the treasures of the tribe, especially pearls from the Gulf,

as he was told. The chief returned the visit of La Salle, coming in

great state, with attendants, one of whom bore a disk of copper,

supposed to represent the sun, the chief’s great ancestor.[559] The

wooden eagles recall the large copper bird taken from mound No. 25 at

Hopewell; and the copper disk carried before the chief suggests a

similar use for some of the large objects of the same metal. The whole

account is extremely interesting in its resemblance to the Ohio remains.

The most complete study of these ancient structures is that of the

Harness mound, not far distant from the Hopewell, conducted under the

direction of the Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society, in

1905, by their curator and librarian, Prof. William C. Mills.[560]

The Harness group contains within and about it fourteen mounds; the

works as a whole were described by Squier and Davis, on page 56 of their

great report (“Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley,” 1848), and

have been frequently mentioned and pictured for their striking form,—a

large and perfect circle, opening at one side into a smaller circle and

also into an exact square. They are located, like the Hopewell, in Ross

County, and stand on a terrace of the Scioto River, nearly a mile from

its eastern bank, and about eight miles south of Chillicothe.

The square inclosure measures 1080 feet on each side, and the diameters

of the two circles are about 1600 feet for the larger and 650 feet for

the smaller. In general character, this group closely resembles the

Hopewell: there is the same low wall or embankment, some four feet high,

though without any ditch as at Hopewell, and the same problem as to its

object. A number of small mounds are placed here and there, and one

large and important one recalls the Effigy, though it is somewhat less

in size and much more regular in form. In 1846, when Squier and Davis

examined it, unfortunately most of the ground was covered with woods;

but these are gone, and the works have since been much reduced by

tillage and partly obliterated by railroad and other constructions.

The one large mound is named for the recent owner of the property, Mr.

Edwin Harness; the present owner, his son, Mr. John M. Harness, aided

and facilitated the explorations in every way. This fact, as also in the

case of Mr. Hopewell, stands in pleasing and honorable contrast to the

narrow policy of some land-owners, who refuse permission for any such

work, even when the structures are upon unused and valueless ground.

The large mound is an almost perfect oval in form, 160 feet long and

some 80 feet across at its widest point, which is about one third of the

way from the northern end; in height it is nearly 20 feet, or was before

its recent removal. It was partly explored by Squier and Davis in 1846,

and quite extensively by Professor Putnam in 1885, and, unlike the

Effigy mound, had been repeatedly opened and examined in a small way by

both official and unofficial explorers. In 1896, Mr. W. K. Moorehead

took up the work where Professor Putnam had stopped, and carried it

considerably further, under the auspices of the Ohio Archæological and

Historical Society; and the same body, in 1905, commissioned Mr. Mills

to resume and complete the examination, removing the entire structure

down to its base.

The Harness mound, unlike the Effigy, was for burial purposes only.

There must have been nearly two hundred. Squier and Davis found one of

these, and possibly another which they mistook for an “altar”; and they

state their belief that the mound probably contained other burials which

their two pits had not revealed. Professor Putnam encountered 12

burials, Mr. Moorehead 27, and the final exploration 133, making a total

of 174. Besides these, an unknown number have been disturbed and removed

by occasional explorers. Of the 174 recorded, only ten had been buried

without being burned; the rest were all cremated, some where they were

laid, but most of them elsewhere, and the ashes brought and placed in

the grave. This was in all cases carefully prepared, within a small

inclosure of logs, the decayed and charred remains of which are clearly

traceable. The entire mound itself had been outlined with posts set in

the ground. the holes and impressions remaining as evidence of the fact.

Mr. Mills outlines the history of this mound, in a way that recalls Mr.

Moorehead’s views as to the gradual growth of the Effigy. It began as a

place for the holding of funeral rites and the deposit of the dead,

marked out by lines of posts, which show that it was from time to time

enlarged. Finally, when the place was substantially filled, earth and

gravel were deposited over the whole, and slabs of stone (particularly

noted by Squier and Davis) were laid around it, upon the lower part of

the slope.

Much description is given of the separate graves or burial chambers,

which are of several types, and of the various details of the cremated

and uncremated interments. The mound is rich in relics, although none of

the profuse sacrificial accumulations of the “altars” were encountered,

this being a mound of burial only. The relics are of the same kind, in

general, as those found in the Hopewell group, and to specify them in

detail would be only repetition. From the 133 graves opened in Mr.

Mills’s final investigation, no less than 1200 specimens were obtained

for the museum of the Archæological Society at Columbus. Among these

were artefacts of Lake Superior copper (and some pieces of native

silver), large shells from the Gulf, galena, obsidian, and much mica,

both in “blocks” and cut into ornaments, all showing the same range of

aboriginal commerce as already described at Hopewell. In reference to

pearls, the following are the principal observations:

Beads made from Unio pearls were very abundant everywhere in the Harness

mound, as also beads of shell. They are found in such position as to

show that they were strung and worn around the neck or wrists. One

burial (No. 100) had some 2100 pearl beads, all rather small, and some

of them perfectly round. Several hundred were obtained, however, that

ranged from one quarter to one half an inch in diameter. A number of

these are shown of natural size. The larger pearls, instead of being

bored through for beads, are frequently somewhat flattened by grinding,

and then pierced with two holes so as to attach them to a fabric. Very

large ones were sometimes set in copper,—a style of work never observed

before. Mr. Mills says of this: “Large and select pearls were flattened

upon one side by grinding, and then placed upon a circular disk of

copper a little larger than the pearl. The edges were then turned (up)

around the pearl, holding it in place. Not only were pearls set in this

way, but various pieces of shell cut in a circular form.” Fine examples

of this unique style of jewelry, of natural size, and another copper

setting of like character, from which the pearl has been lost, are shown

in plates facing pages 499 and 510.

More curious still is the discovery of imitation pearls, made of clay,

and apparently modeled from real ones as they reproduce all the

irregularities of form of the true pearls. They could easily have been

made more nearly spherical, as the beads cut from shell are so regular

as to look as though made by machinery. These somewhat irregular clay

imitations, found with the genuine pearls, were first coated with a

pulverent mica and then burned so as to preserve a pearly appearance.

Other forms of art work were abundantly represented in the Harness

mound, such as carvings and decorations in stone and bone; a variety of

textile fabrics, of which remnants are preserved when they were in

contact with plates of copper, the salts of the metal having penetrated

the fabric and prevented its entire decay; very skilful work in copper,

and to some extent in native silver and meteoric iron; and numerous

fragments of pottery, more or less ornamental with simple impressed

patterns. The “culture,” as a whole, appears to have been equal, and

very similar, to that of the Hopewell community, and these are regarded

as having been the most advanced among the Ohio mound-builders; while

the term “Fort Ancient culture” is applied to a somewhat lower grade in

the matter of arts, which has its chief illustration among the builders

and occupants of that celebrated work. By such researches, thus minutely

and systematically conducted, there is now beginning to be possible

something like a classification of these ancient unknown tribes, which

will doubtless be developed more fully, as investigation shall be

extended and its results combined and compared.

As to pearls in the mounds of Illinois, we are informed by the veteran

archæologist, Dr. J. F. Snyder, that in 1889 he found the skeletons of

three adult Indians at the base of a small mound on the bluffs of the

Sangomon River in Cass County. These skeletons were in a squatting

posture; artefacts—such as greenstone celts, a bicave stone and a heavy

pipe—had only been deposited with one of them. Around each wrist and

ankle of this skeleton were perforated beads made from _Marginella_

shells, and resting on the sternum was a solitary pearl which had

evidently formed the center of a necklace of the same small marine

shells. Although much decayed, it still retained something of its

original luster. It was spherical, measured approximately seven eighths

of an inch in diameter, and was perforated through the middle. Dr.

Snyder also states that at the base of one of the large mounds he opened

in 1895, in Brown County, on the west side of the Illinois River, he

discovered a number of the large canine teeth of the bear, perforated at

the roots, so as to be used for necklaces. On the convex side of each

tooth were from two to four pits about one third of an inch in diameter,

and the same in depth, in which gems had been inserted. Two small pearls

were still in place. Near by were the remains of another necklace

composed of alternate pearls and bone beads; the latter were oblong and

perforated lengthwise. Eight of the pearls were recovered, ranging in

diameter from one half to one third of an inch, and pierced through the

center, but all were very badly injured by the action of fire.

Mr. David I. Bushnell, who has excavated the McEvers mound in Montezuma,

Pike County, Illinois, for the Missouri Historical Society, found in

this mound a cyst containing a skeleton six feet in height and also a

skull reposing on a bundle of bones near which lay forty-five pearls,

one of them weighing fifty-two grains and still showing a beautiful

luster. Almost all the objects discovered in the mound will be presented

to the Missouri Historical Society. The large pearl would be worth from

$12,000 to $15,000 if it were in perfect condition.

We learn from Mr. Richard Herrmann, founder of the Herrmann Museum of

Natural History, Dubuque, Iowa, that on the top of the high cliff from

Eagle’s Point to its end at McKnight’s Spring, there were formerly a

great many mounds which were long ago examined by government experts.

Many ancient ornaments were found in these mounds, among them a string

of pearls, greatly damaged from having been buried for a long

period.[561] Mr. Herrmann believes that these pearls were taken from the

Mississippi River by the mound-builders.

Enough has been said, in this general sketch, to give some idea of the

extent to which pearls, largely those from the fresh-water Unios, were

gathered and used by the native tribes of North America, from the

ancient mound-builders of the Ohio Valley to the Indians encountered by

the explorers and colonists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

The love of pearls shown by the Indians was as noteworthy as was their

devotion to their dead and the superstitious mystery which enshrouds

their funeral rites; for, when the human sacrifice was consummated, the

act was performed in as earnest a spirit of devotion as was shown by

Abraham in his readiness to sacrifice Isaac, and the Indians evidenced

an almost pathetic sentiment either of reverence, duty, or supernatural

dread.

Dr. J. Walter Fewkes writes that in none of his excavations has he ever

noted pearls. Haliotis shells, conch shells, and fragments of the same

have been found in the great ruins at Casa Grande, Arizona.

Dr. Charles Hercules Read, director of the Department of Archæology of

the British Museum, states that the Mexican mosaic masks in the Christy

collection, which are pre-Columbian in origin, and probably date

hundreds of years in advance of the conquest, prove of special interest

from the fact that five of them contain an inlay of mother-of-pearl

shell. The first of these is a plain mask in which the eyes are of

mother-of-pearl; the second is a dagger having the details of

feather-work in mother-of-pearl; the third, a circular shield center

having the eyes, teeth, fingers, and toes of the figures in

mother-of-pearl; the fourth, a helmet with small pieces of pearl-shell

representing collars around the necks of rattlesnakes; and the fifth is

a jaguar in the side of which are similar inlays. These masks are

described by Dr. Read in “Archæologia,” Society of Antiquaries, London,

Vol. LIV, p. 383; in this volume the objects are shown in color. Dr.

Read communicates that the pearl jaguar seems to be of more recent

execution, but he believes the first four to be original. He is not

entirely sure that these objects contain the true mother-of-pearl, the

substance having changed so much as to make a decision doubtful even if

it were extracted. He states, however, that it is a pearly, nacreous

shell, resembling that of the ordinary pearl-oyster. In these masks are

also other shells, among them a red shell, probably a spondylus, almost

as red as coral. The mother-of-pearl is of special interest as it is

quite possible that the shell itself was known, and it may be that

pearls also formed part of a commerce that existed between the coast and

the interior.

[Illustration:

Group of charred, cut fresh-water pearls; more than 100,000 found in

mounds

]

[Illustration:

Finger-shaped piece of lignite inlaid with fresh-water pearl

]

[Illustration:

Copper bird, 15⅞ inches long with eye of fresh-water pearl

]

FRESH-WATER PEARLS FROM HOPEWELL GROUP OF MOUNDS, ROSS COUNTY, OHIO

We are informed by Mr. E. P. Dieseldorf, of Coban, Republic of

Guatemala, that he has never observed pearls in the pre-Columbian graves

in Guatemala; he had, however, frequently found marine shells, whole,

and elaborated in connection with jadeite beads.

In a personal communication, Mr. Thomas Gann, of Yucatan, states that,

in excavating a mound at San Antonio, near the mouth of the Rio Hondo,

in Yucatan, he uncovered a small stone cyst or chamber, containing two

perforated, pear-like ornaments of considerable size, together with

portions of a human skeleton, painted pottery, etc. He also states that

ornaments such as beads, gorgets, and ear-pendants, made from the pearly

shell of both the oyster and the conch, are of common occurrence in many

sepulchral mounds in British Honduras and in Yucatan, and he notes the

fact that pink conch pearls are found in considerable numbers at the

present day along the coast of British Honduras. There is no especial

fishing for pearls, and they are found only incidentally in conchs which

have been gathered for food. These pearls are sold by fishermen in

Balize at prices varying from two or three dollars to twenty or thirty

apiece. In size they range from that of a large pin’s head to that of a

small pea.

Mrs. Marie Robinson Wright informs us that she has never found pearls in

the Bolivian graves, although they are quite plentiful in Bolivia

to-day, and hundreds of them are offered in the markets. The pretty

girls wear them as earrings and in their _topos_.

There is no doubt that pearls existed long before the advent of man,

both in the fresh-water and in the marine form. This is more clearly

evidenced by Sir Charles Lyell, who calls attention to the fact that the

fresh-water mussel (_Unio littoralis Gray_), formerly found in abundance

at Grays Thurrock, Essex, no longer exists in England, but occurs in

France, showing that not only had this mollusk been unseen by any

Englishman, but that the form had become extinct in an entire country.

Thus, both the pearl shell of the ocean and the pearl-mussel of the

river, for many centuries produced pearls, which passed away with the

shell itself.

A great number of fossil Unios were collected by Barnum Brown from the

Laramie clays, 130 miles northwest of Miles City, Montana. The shells

were found in a bed situated about 180 feet above the Fort Pierre shales

and, therefore, well above the recognized cretaceous strata. These

shells were in fairly good condition and retained the nacreous coloring

to a considerable extent. As some of them resemble the modern species,

it seems that the same designations might be applied to them.

Prof. R. P. Whitfield, one of our greatest palæontologists, who has

carefully examined these fossil shells, suggests that they are probably

the progenitors of the species of Unios and fresh-water mussels that now

inhabit the Mississippi and Wisconsin rivers and their tributaries, and

he proposes the following names for some of them, indicating at the same

time the living species with which he compares them: _Unio biæsopoides_,

_Unio æsopoides_ and _Unio æsopiformis_, all resembling _U. æsopus_

Green; _Unio letsoni_ = _U. cornutus_ Barnes; _Unio cylindricoides_ =

_U. cylindricus_ Say; _Unio gibbosoides_ = _U. gibbosus_ Barnes; _Unio

pyramidatoides_ = _U. pyramidatus_ Lea; _Unio retusoides_ = _U. retusus_

Lam.; _Unio verucosiformis_ = _U. verrucosus_ Barnes.

Although it is almost certain that these ancient Unios were

pearl-bearing, Professor Whitfield informs us that, in a period of fifty

years of palæontological research, he has never found a fossil pearl.

We are informed by Sophus Müller, Director of the Royal Danish Museum of

Antiquities at Copenhagen, that no Danish ornaments containing pearls

have been found dating from an earlier period than 1000 B.C.; he also

states that no fresh-water pearls have ever been discovered in the

Danish graves.

Dr. H. Ulmann, director of the great Swiss Landesmuseum at Zurich, and

Dr. Otto Leiner, director of the Rosengarten Museum at Constance,

personally communicated to us that no pearls exist in either of the

collections of these great museums, nor to their knowledge have any been

discovered in the lake-dwellings or the prehistoric graves of either

Switzerland or Baden. This may either be due to conditions favorable to

the dissolution of the pearl by the action of the ooze on the lake

bottom, or else to the entire absence of knowledge of them on the part

of a people who were familiar with many materials, since the museum

collections even show jade implements of a number of types.

Dr. Leiner, whose father was curator of the Rosengarten Museum before

him, informs us that at Bodman on Lake Constance there were found a

large number of bored cylinders, from one fourth of an inch to one inch

in length, made out of limestone. They were used for necklaces, somewhat

in the style of our Indian wampum, and were either worn alone or in

connection with bored cylinders made of the tuff-rock and also of

encrinite stems.

Dr. Leiner also asserts that he has never seen _Unio margaritifera_ in

Lake Constance; nor was there any evidence of shells, broken or

otherwise, observed by him in the excavations in the lake-dwellings.

The curator of the Rhodesia Museum, Bulawayo, South Africa, states that

in Rhodesia, in the vicinity of Bulawayo, beads made out of the shell of

the common Unio or fresh-water mussel (_Unio verreauxi_) have been

observed in the graves, although pearls themselves have never been found

with them in any burials.

ADDENDA

One of the authors used every endeavor in 1893 and 1894 to have a

bill passed by Congress for the regulation of pearl-fishing in the

United States. These efforts were frustrated by the influence of the

local pearl fishers. An attempt has now been made to preserve the

industry in Illinois, where the legislature has this spring passed a

bill for its regulation.

The first section of the bill provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to take or catch, by

any means whatever, in any of the navigable waters within the

jurisdiction of this State, any mussel, fresh-water clam or

shell-fish from the first day of October to the first day of April

(both dates inclusive) of each succeeding year.

The bill imposes upon any one who violates these provisions a fine of

not less than $25, nor more than $100, or imprisonment in the county

jail for a term not exceeding one year, or else both fine and

imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Another section provides that any one not a resident of Illinois, who

takes clams, shell-fish, or mussels, without procuring a license, shall

be subject to a fine of not less than $50, nor more than $100, or to

imprisonment for one year, or to both penalties. The licenses may be

procured on application and payment of $50 for each vessel to be

employed, and they expire on the first day of October following their

issuance. The amount received for these licenses is to be turned over to

the State Treasurer at the end of each month and placed to the credit of

the State Fish Protective Fund. No boat having more than two bars, each

not exceeding sixteen feet in length, shall be used for this fishery,

and the space separating the hooks on these bars is not to be less than

eight inches.

Miss Carl, the artist who painted the portraits of the Empress and that

of the Dowager Empress of China, states that she wears a diamond ring.

When she shows this she apologizes for wearing it, stating that it had

been given to her by the Viceroy, Li Hung Chang, saying that she,

herself, sees no beauty in the sparkle of the diamond; for her there is

more beauty in the soft, quiet tones of the pearl than in the brilliancy

of the diamond.

During the Boxer War in China, the looting was carried on to so great an

extent, that a French hotel-keeper is said to have obtained a basket of

pearls, which he bought for a trifle, and which are said to have netted

him very nearly $1,000,000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY[562]

ALBERTUS MAGNUS, _Bishop of Ratisbon_

Le libro de le pietre preciose e de le loro u(ir)tude (Old Italian

version of the De lapidibus). 14th century MS., vellum, 44ff. 4to. In

the library of George F. Kunz.

The Secrets of Albertus Magnus of the Vertues of Hearbs, Stones and

Certaine Beasts. _London_, 1617. 12mo.

ANGLERIUS (PETRUS MARTYR)

De orbe nove decades (8). _Compluti_, 1530. Fol.

The Historie of the West Indies. Hakluyt’s Voyages. Vol. v. _London_,

1809. 4to.

The Decades of the New Worlde. Translated by Richard Eden. Edited by

Edward Arber. _Birmingham_, 1885. 4to.

ANSON (GEORGE), _Baron_

A Voyage Round the World, in the Years MDCCXL, I, II, III, IV.

_London_, 1748. 4to.

ATHENÆUS, _Naucratita_

Deipnosophistarum libri quindecim. _Gr._ and _Lat._ 14 vols.

_Argentorati_, 1801–07. 8vo.

The Deipnosophists, or Banquet of the Learned, of Athenæus. 3 vols.

_London_, 1854. 8vo.

BACCI (ANDREA)

De gemmis et lapidibus pretiosis. _Francofurti_, 1543. 8vo.

BALFOUR (EDWARD)

Article “Pearls.” The Cyclopædia of India. Third edition. _London_,

1885. 8vo.

BARBOSA (DUARTE)

A Description of the Coasts of East Africa and Malabar in the

Beginning of the 16th Century. _London_, Hakluyt Society, 1866. 8vo.

BARRERA (A. DE), _Madame_

Gems and Jewels: Their History, Geography, Chemistry, and Ana.

_London_, 1860. 8vo.

BARTHEMA (LODOVICO DI)

The Travels of Lodovico di Varthema in Egypt, Syria, Arabia Deserta

and Arabia Felix, in Persia, India, and Ethiopia, A.D. 1503 to 1508.

_London_, Hakluyt Society, 1863. 8vo.

BAUER (MAX)

Precious Stones; a Popular Account of Their Characteristics and

Applications, With an Appendix on Pearls and Coral. Translated from

the German with additions by L. J. Spencer. _London_, 1904. 8vo.

BAUGNIET (HENRI DE)

Description historique et scientifique de la Collection de Pierres

précieuses. _Bruxelles_, 1847. 12mo.

BECKMANN (JOHANN)

Beyträge zur Geschichte der Erfindungen. 2 vols. _Leipzig_, 1782–1805.

8vo.

BELLEAU (REMI)

Les amours et nouveaux éschanges des pierres précieuses: vertus et

proprietez d’icelles. Discours de la vanité, pris de l’Ecclésiaste de

Salomon. _Paris_, 1576. 4to.

BENJAMIN (BEN JONAH) _of Tudela_

The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela; Translated and Edited by A.

Asher. 2 vols. _London_, 1840–41. 12mo.

BENT (THEODORE AND MRS. THEODORE)

Southern Arabia. _London_, 1900. 8vo.

BENZONI (GIROLAMO)

Novæ novi orbis historiæ; id est rerum ab Hispanis in India

occidentali hactenus gestarum ... libri tres, U. Calvetonis opera ex

Italicis Hieronymi Benzonis. _Geneva_, 1578. 8vo. History of the New

World; Showing his Travels in America, from A.D. 1541 to 1556.

_London_, Hakluyt Society, 1857. 8vo.

BERQUEN (ROBERT DE)

Les Merveilles des Indes Orientales et Occidentals, ou nouveau. Traité

des Pierres précieuses, et des Perles. _Paris_, 1661. 8vo.

BERTHELOT (M.)

Traitement des perles. Collection des anciens Alchimistes Grecs, pp.

352–356. _Paris_, 1888.

BEUMENBERGER (JOHANN GOTTLIEB)

Der Vollkommene Juwelier. _Weimar_, 1828. 8vo.

BIEDERMANN (WILHELM)

Untersuchungen über Bau und Entstehung der Molluskenschalen, Jenaische

Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaften, VOL. XXXVI, pp. 1–164. _Jena_,

1901.

BION (JEAN MARIE)

Inventaire des Diamans de la Couronne, Perles, Pierreries,

Tableaux, ... existans au Garde-Meuble ... fait ... par ses

commissaires MM. Bion, Christin et Delattre. _Paris_, 1791. 8vo.

BIRON (C. C.)

Curiositez de la Nature et de l’Art, aportées dans deux Voyages des

Indes. _Paris_, 1703. 12mo.

BLACKSTONE (A. G.)

British Pearls. “Belgravia Magazine,” Vol. ix, pp. 343–350. _London_,

September, 1869.

Also in “Eclectic Magazine,” VOL. X, pp. 604–608. LONDON, November,

1869.

BLAKE (HENRY A.), _Sir_

Leasing of the Pearl Fisheries of Ceylon. Sessional Papers, pp.

327–336. _Colombo_, 1906. Fol.

BLANCO (GUZMAN), _President_

Apuntes Estadísticos del Estado Nueva Esparta. _Caracas_, 1876. 8vo.

BOCHART (SAMUEL)

Hierozoicon, sive Bipartitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ.

_Londini_, 1663. Fol.

BOËTHIUS (ANSELMUS)

Gemmarum et lapidum historia. _Hanoviæ_, 1609. 4to. Recensuit et

commentariis illustravit Adrianus Tollius. _Leyden_, 1636. 4to.

Tollius’ 3rd edition (1647) appends the Greek text of Theophrastus and

a short work, “De Gemmis et Lapidibus,” by Johannis de Laet of

Antwerp.

BOHADSCH (JOANNES BAPTISTA)

De quibusdam animalibus marinis. _Dresdæ_, 1761. 4to.

BOHLEN (PETER VON)

Das alte Indien, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Aegypten. 2 vols.

_Königsberg_, 1830. 8vo.

BONNEMERE (LIONEL)

Les Perles fines de l’Ouest de la France. Revue des Sciences

Naturelles de l’Ouest. VOL. III, pp. 97–99. _Nantes_, 1893.

Les Mollusques des eaux douces de France et leurs perles. Institut

International de Bibliographie Scientifique. _Paris_, 1901. 8vo.

BOUCHON-BRANDELEY (G.)

La Pêche et la Culture des Huîtres Perlières à Tahiti; Pêcheries de

l’Archipel Tuamotu. Journal Officiel, June 23, 25, 26, and 27.

_Paris_, 1885. Translated in Report U. S. Fish Commission, 1885, pp.

353–377.

BOUTAN (LOUIS)

Production artificielle des perles chez les _Haliotis_. Comptes Rendus

de l’Académie des Sciences, VOL. CXXVII, pp. 828–830. _Paris_, 1898.

L’Origine réelle des perles fines. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des

Sciences, VOL. CXXXVII, pp. 1073–1075. _Paris_, 1903.

BOWERBANK (JAMES SCOTT)

On the Structure of the Shells of Molluscous and Conchiferous Animals.

Transactions of the Microscopic Society, VOL. I, pp. 123–154.

_London_, 1844.

Also in Froriep, Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur und Heilkunde, VOL.

XXV, 1843.

BREWSTER (DAVID), _Sir_

On the New Properties of Light, Exhibited in the Optical Phenomena of

Mother-of-Pearl. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

_London_, 1814, VOL. II, pp. 397–418.

Also in Journal de Physique, VOL. LXXXI, pp. 181–188, 471–473, 1815. A

Treatise on Optics. _London_, 1831. 8vo.

BRODIE (JAMES)

The Pearls of the Ythan, Aberdeenshire. Proceedings of the Royal

Physical Society, VOL. III, pp. 394–396. _Edinburgh_, 1867.

BRUCE (JAMES)

Select Specimens of Natural History, Collected in Travels to Discover

the Source of the Nile, in Egypt, Arabia, Abyssinia, and Nubia.

_Dublin_, 1790. 8vo.

BRYDGES (HARFORD JONES), _Sir_

Mission to the Court of Persia, in the years 1807–11. 2 vols.

_London_, 1834. 8vo.

BUCKLAND (_Francis Trevelyan_)

Log-book of a Fisherman and Zoologist. _London_, 1875. 8vo.

BUFFUM (E. GOULD)

Pearl Diving [Gulf of California]. “The Pioneer, or California Monthly

Magazine,” VOL. I, pp. 35–39. _San Francisco_, January, 1854.

BURNHAM (S. M.)

Precious Stones in Nature, Art and Literature. _Boston_, 1886. 8vo.

C. (D.)

Some Account of the British Pearl Fishery now Existing on the Conway.

“Loudon’s Magazine of Natural History,” VOL. III, pp. 132–134.

_London_, 1830.

CAIRE (A.)

La Science des pierres précieuses, appliquée aux arts. _Paris_, 1826.

8vo.

CALVERT (ALBERT FREDERICK)

Pearls: their Origin and Formation. _London_, 1892. 8vo.

CAMDEN (WILLIAM)

Britannia; or A Chorographical Description of Great Britain and

Ireland, Together With the Adjacent Islands. 2 vols. _London_, 1722.

Fol.

CARPENTER (WILLIAM B.)

On the Microscopic Structure of Shells. Report of the British

Association for the Advancement of Science, September, 1844, pp. 1–28.

_London_, 1845.

The Microscope and its Revelations. Sixth edition. _London_, 1881.

8vo.

CATALOGUE

Diamants, Perles et Pierreries provenant de la collection dite des

Joyaux de la Couronne. _Paris_, Imprimerie National, 1887. Fol.

CATTELLE (W. R.)

Precious Stones: a Book of Reference for Jewelers. _Philadelphia_,

1903. 8vo.

The Pearl. _Philadelphia_, 1907. 8vo.

CHAMBERS’S JOURNAL

Pearls and Pearl Fisheries in the Persian Gulf. “Chambers’s Journal,”

VOL. XIX, pp. 157–160. _Edinburgh_, March 5, 1853.

Fishing for Pearls. “Chambers’s Journal,” VOL. LV, pp. 87–90, February

9, 1878.

CHAPPUZEAU (LE SIEUR)

Histoire des Joyaux, et des principales Richesses de l’Orient et de

l’Occident. _Genève_, 1665. 12mo.

The History of Jewels and of the Principal Riches of the East and

West. LONDON, 1671. 12mo.

CHARDIN (JEAN)

Voyages en Perse, et autres lieux de l’Orient. 10 vols. _Amsterdam_,

1711. 12mo.

CHARTIER (H. LE)

Tahiti et les Colonies Françaises de la Polynésie. _Paris_, 1887. 8vo.

CHURCH (ARTHUR HERBERT)

Precious Stones Considered in Their Scientific and Artistic Relations.

South Kensington Museum Handbook. _London_, 1883. 8vo.

CLAVE (ÉTIENNE DE)

Paradoxes, ou traittéz Philosophiques des pierres et pierreries,

contre l’opinion vulgaire. _Paris_, 1635. 8vo.

CLAVIO (D. SERVATIO)

Piscatura margaritarum. Miscellanea Curiosa sive Ephemeridum

Medico-Physicarum Germanicarum Academiæ, pp. 417–419. _Norimbergæ_,

1685.

CLOQUET (J.) AND MOQUIN-TANDON (M.)

Observations sur les perles des bivalves d’eau douce. Bulletin de la

Societe d’Acclimatation, VOL. V, pp. 452–461. _Paris_, 1858.

COATE (H. E. ACRAMAN)

Pearl Fishing [Ceylon], “Time Magazine,” VOL. XXI, pp. 646–653.

_London_, December, 1889.

COLLETT (OLIVER)

Pearl-oysters and Pearl Fisheries. Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the

Royal Asiatic Society, VOL. XVI, pp. 165–197. _Colombo_, 1901. 8vo.

COMBA (B.)

La Madreperla. _Torino_, 1898. 8vo.

COMBER (E.)

Economic Uses of Shells. Journal of the Bombay Natural History

Society, VOL. XVI, pp. 462–472. _Bombay_, 1905.

COMYN (TOMÁS DE)

State of the Philippine Islands. _London_, 1820. 8vo.

CORDINER (JAMES)

A Description of Ceylon, Containing an Account of the Country,

Inhabitants and Natural Productions. 2 vols. _London_, 1807. 4to.

CORNHILL MAGAZINE

The Pearl Harvest. “Cornhill Magazine,” VOL. XIV, pp. 161–173.

_London_, August, 1866.

COUTANCE (A.)

La Perle. Diamant et Pierres Précieuses; ... au point de vue de leur

histoire et de leur travail ... Par E. Jannettaz, ... A. Coutance.

_Paris_, 1881. 8vo.

COXE (DANIEL)

A Description of the English Province of Carolana, by the Spaniards

call’d Florida, and by the French La Louisiana, as also of the great

and famous river Meschacebe or Missisipi. _London_, 1722. 8vo.

CURZON (GEORGE NATHANIEL), _Baron_

Persia and the Persian Question. 2 vols. _London_, 1892. 8vo.

D. (M. L. M. D. S.)

Le dénombrement, facultéz et origine des pierres précieuses. _Paris_,

1667. 8vo.

DALL (W. H.)

Pearls and Pearl Fisheries. “American Naturalist,” VOL. XVII, pp.

579–586 and 731–745. _Philadelphia_, June, 1883, and July, 1883.

DALLAS (W. S.)

On the Natural History of the Cingalese Pearl-oyster and on the

Production of Pearls. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Ser. 3,

VOL. I, pp. 81–90. _London_, February, 1858.

DAMPIER (WILLIAM)

A New Voyage Round the World. 2 vols. _London_, 1699–1703. 8vo.

DARBOUX (G.)

L’Industrie des Pêches aux Colonies. Les Produits de la Pêche.

_Marseille_, 1906. 4to.

DASTRE (A.)

Les Perles fines; Production naturelle et production artificielle.

Revue des Deux Mondes, VOL. CLI, pp. 671–690. _Paris_, 1899.

DAVENPORT (CYRIL JAMES)

The English Regalia. _London_, 1897. 4to.

DELONDRE (AUGUSTIN)

Nacroculture et ostréiculture perlière aux îles Pomotu (Océanie).

Bulletin de la Société National d’Acclimatation, VOL. III, pp.

389–390. _Paris_, 1876.

DENNYS (N. B.)

Breeding Pearls. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic

Society, VOL. I, pp. 31–37. _Singapore_, July, 1878.

DICKENS (CHARLES), _Editor_

Pearl Fishery [Ceylon, 1836]. “Household Words,” VOL. III, pp. 75–80.

_London_, April 12, 1851.

Pearls of Price. “All the Year Round,” VOL. XVII, pp. 534–537.

_London_, June 1, 1867.

Scotch pearls. “All the Year Round,” VOL. XXI, pp. 125–127, January 9,

1869.

Also in “Every Saturday,” VOL. VII, pp. 157–158. _Boston_, January 30,

1869.

DIEULAFAIT (LOUIS)

Diamonds and Precious Stones; a Popular Account of Gems. Translated

from the French ... by F. Sanford. _Cambridge, U. S. A._, 1874. 8vo.

DIGUET (LÉON)

Pêche de l’huître perlière dans le Golfe de Californie. Bulletin de la

Société Centrale d’Aquiculture. VOL. VII, pp. 1–18. _Paris_, 1895.

Sur la formation de la perle fine chez la _Meleagrina margaritifera_.

Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, VOL. CXXVIII, pp. 1589–91.

_Paris_, 1899.

Exploitation de l’huître perlière dans le Golfe de Californie.

Bulletin de la Société Centrale d’Aquiculture, VOL. IX, pp. 221–235.

_Paris_, 1899.

DOBRZENSKY (JACOBUS JOANNES WENCESLAUS)

Perlarum maturationis historia. Miscellanea Curiosa Medico-physica,

obs. 183, pp. 281–282. _Jenæ_, 1671.

DONNAN (JAMES)

Report on the Inspection of Pearl Banks, 1875. Sessional Papers.

_Colombo_, 1875. Fol.

Report on the Inspection of the Pearl Oyster Banks, 1876. Sessional

Papers. _Colombo_, 1876. Fol.

Report on the Inspection of the Pearl Oyster Banks, 1878. Sessional

Papers. _Colombo_, 1878. Fol.

Report on a Recent Inspection of the Pearl Banks. Sessional Papers.

_Colombo_, 1880. Fol.

Report on the Pearl Fishery off Chilaw. Sessional Papers. _Colombo_,

1884. Fol.

Report of an Experimental Cultivation of Pearl-Oysters. Sessional

Papers. _Colombo_, 1885. Fol.

Report on a Recent Inspection of the Pearl Banks. Sessional Papers.

_Colombo_, 1885. Fol.

Report of a Recent Inspection of the Pearl Banks. Sessional Papers.

_Colombo_, 1886. Fol.

Report of an Inspection of the Pearl Banks, 1887. Sessional Papers.

_Colombo_, 1888. Fol.

Report on the Failure of Oysters on the Cheval Paar, 1887. Sessional

Papers. _Colombo_, 1888. Fol.

DONNAN (JAMES) AND TWYNAM (W. C.)

Reports by the Superintendent of the Fishery and the Inspector of the

Pearl Banks. Sessional Papers. _Colombo_, 1887. Fol.

DOUMERT (A.)

Nos Parures. Le Jais et les Perles Fausses. _Paris_, 1890. 12mo.

DUBOIS (RAPHAËL)

Sur le mécanisme de la formation des perles fines dans le _Mytilus

edulis_. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, VOL. CXXXIII, pp.

603–605. _Paris_, 1901.

Sur la nature et la formation des perles fines naturelles. Mémoires et

Comptes Rendus des Séances du Congrès International d’Aquiculture et

de Pêche. _Paris_, 1903. 8vo.

Sur l’acclimatation et la culture des _Pintadines_, ou huîtres

perlières vraies, sur les côtes de France, et sur la production forcée

des perles fines. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, VOL.

CXXXVII, pp. 611–613. _Paris_, 1903.

Application des rayons X à la recherche des perles fines. Comptes

Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, VOL. CXXXVIII, pp. 301–302.

_Paris_, 1904.

Sur les perles de nacre. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences,

VOL. CXXXVIII, pp. 583–584. _Paris_, 1904.

Sur le mécanisme sécrétoire producteur des perles. Comptes Rendus de

l’Académie des Sciences, VOL. CXXXVIII, pp. 710–712. _Paris_, 1904.

DUTENS (LOUIS)

Des pierres précieuses et des perles fines, avec les moyens de les

connoître et de les évaluer. _Londres_, 1776. 12mo.

EBERHARD (JOHANN PETER)

Abhandlung von dem Ursprung der Perle, worin deren Zeugung, Wachsthum

und Beschaffenheit erklärt, und eine Nachricht von verschiedenen

Perlenfischereien gegeben wird. _Halle_, 1751. 8vo.

EDOUARD-PETIT (ALIX)

Aux îles des perles. Journal le Correspondent, pp. 977–996. _Paris_,

March 10, 1906.

ELGIN, _Earl of_

Leasing of the Pearl Fisheries of Ceylon. Sessional Papers, pp.

650–651. _Colombo_, 1906.

EMANUEL (HARRY)

Diamonds and precious stones. _London_, 1865. 8vo.

ENTRECOLLES (F. X. D’)

Manière de faire des perles artificielles. Lettre à Pekin, 4 Nov.

1734. Lettres édifiantes et curieuses écrites des Missions Étrangères,

VOL. XXII, pp. 425–437. _Paris_, 1736.

ESTEVA (JOSÉ MARIA)

Memoria sobre la pesca de la perla en la Baja California. Boletin de

la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, VOL. X, pp. 673–697.

_Mexico_, 1865.

FARRINGTON (OLIVER CUMMINGS)

Gems and Gem Minerals. _Chicago_, 1903. 8vo.

FERGUSON (ALASTAIR MAKENZIE AND JOHN)

All about Gold, Gems, and Pearls in Ceylon and Southern India....

Second edition. _Colombo_, 1888. 8vo.

FERNANDES DE QUEIROS (PEDRO)

The Voyages of Pedro Fernandez de Quiros, 1595–1606. Translated and

edited by Sir Clements Markham. 2 vols. _London_, Hakluyt Society,

1904. 8vo.

FEUCHTWANGER (LEWIS)

A Popular Treatise on Gems, in Reference to Their Scientific Value.

_New York_, 1859. 8vo.

FICHTNER (CONRAD HEINRICH)

Einige Nachrichten von dem Rehauischen Perlen Bach. Frankische

Sammlungen von Anmerkungen aus der Naturlehre Arzneigelehrtheit.

_Nurnberg_, 1768. 8vo.

FIELDS (J. T.)

Underbrush. _Boston_, 1881. 8vo.

FILIPPI (FILIPPO DE)

Sull’ origine delle perle. Il Cimento revista di Scienza, Lettere, ed

Arti, VOL. I, pp. 429–439. _Torino_, 1852. Translated into German by

Dr. Küchenmeister in Müllers’ Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie, und

wissenschaftliche Medicin, 1856, pp. 251–269. _Berlin_, 1856.

Mémoire pour servir à l’histoire génétique des Trématodes. Memorie

della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, VOL. XV, pp. 331–358,

1855; VOL. XVI, pp. 419–442. _Torino_, 1857.

Also in Annales des Sciences Naturelles, VOL. II (Zool.), pp. 254–284.

_Paris_, 1854. Nouvelles observations sur le développement des

Trématodes.

Annales des Sciences Naturelles, III (Zool.), pp. 111–113. _Paris_,

1855.

Encore un mot sur la formation des perles. Müllers’ Archiv für

Anatomie, Physiologie, und wissenschaftliche Medicin, 1856, pp.

490–493. _Berlin_, 1856.

Troisième mémoire pour servir à l’histoire génétique des Trématodes.

Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. VOL. XVIII, pp.

201–232. _Torino_, 1859.

FISCHER (GOTTHELF)

Essai sur la Pellegrina, ou la Perle incomparable des Frères Zozima.

_Moscou_. 1818. 8vo.

FISCHER (P.)

Production artificielle des perles. Journal de Conchyliologie, VOL.

XIII, pp. 64–65. _Paris_, 1865.

FRANK LESLIE’S MAGAZINE

Pearl-mussel Fishery of New Jersey. “Frank Leslie’s Magazine,” VOL.

III, pp. 384–386. _New York_, May 23, 1857.

FRÉDÉ (PIERRE)

La Pêche aux Perles. _Paris_, 1887. 8vo.

La Pêche aux Perles en Perse et à Ceylon. _Paris_, 1890. 8vo.

FREDERICK (CÆSAR)

The Fishing for Pearls [in Ceylon, 1563–81]. Translated out of Italian

by Thomas Hickoke. Hakluyt’s Voyages, VOL. V. _Glasgow_, 1904. 8vo.

FRIEDLAENDER (S.)

Perlen der Juwelierausstellung. Internationale Fischerei-Austellung zu

Berlin, 1880, pp. 75–83. _Berlin_, 1881. 8vo.

FRISWELL (J. H.)

Pearls and Oysters. “Once a Week,” VOL. III, pp. 78–81. _London_, July

14, 1860.

FRYER (JOHN)

A new Account of East-India and Persia. _London_, 1698. Fol.

GANONG (W. F.)

Bibliography of the Fresh-water Pearl Fishery in New Brunswick.

Bulletin of the Natural History Society of New Brunswick, NO. XVII,

pp. 134–136., _St. John, N. B._, 1899.

GARNER (ROBERT)

On the Pearls of the Conway River, North Wales. British Association

for the Advancement of Science, Report for 1856, PART II, pp. 92–93.

_London_, 1857.

Notes on Anatomy and Pearls of _Alasmodon margaritifera_. Proceedings

of the Zoological Society of London, VOL. XI, pp. 426–428, 1872. On

the Formation of British Pearls and Their Possible Improvement.

Journal of the Linnean Society (Zool.), VOL. XI, pp. 426–428.

_London_, 1873.

GARRAN (ANDREW)

Australasia Illustrated. 3 vols. _Sydney_, 1892. 4to.

GEIGER (MALACHIAS)

Margaritologia, sive dissertatio de Margaritis, in qua, post varia ad

Margaritas pertinentia, demonstratur, Margaritas bavaricas, in usu

medicinali, viribus et effectibus æquivalere orientalibus et

occidentalibus. _Monachii_, 1637. 12mo.

GEMELLI-CARERI (GIOVANNI FRANCESCO)

Giro del mondo. Nuova edizione, accresciuta, ricorretta, e divisa in

nove volumi. _Venezia_, 1719. 8vo.

GIARD (ALFRED)

L’épithélium sécréteur des perles. Comptes Rendus de la Société de

Biologie, séance du 29 decembre, 1903, VOL. LV, pp. 1222–1225.

_Paris_, 1903.

GIBBINS (HERBERT JAMES)

Curiosities of Pearls. “Gentleman’s Magazine,” VOL. CCLXXVII, pp.

306–315. _London_, September, 1894.

GILL (WILLIAM WYATT)

Life in the Southern Isles; or Scenes and Incidents in the South

Pacific and New Guinea. _London_, 1876. 8vo.

GILLMAN (HERBERT W.)

Valuation of Pearls in Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the

Royal Asiatic Society, 1887, VOL. X, pp. 32–40. _Colombo_, 1888.

GIMMA (GIACINTO)

Della storia naturale delle gemme, delle pietre, e di tutti i

minerali, ovvero della fisica sotterranea. 2 vols. _Napoli_, 1730.

4to.

GODRON (D.-A.)

Les perles de la Vologne, et le Château-sur-perle. Mémoires de

l’Académie de Stanislas, 1869, pp. 10–30. _Nancy_, 1870.

GRAND (S.)

Méthode de culture de l’huître perlière dans les lagons de Tahiti.

Revue Maritime et Coloniale, VOL. CXXV, pp. 575–590. _Paris_, May,

1895.

GRAY (JOHN EDWARD)

On the Structure of Pearls, and on the Chinese mode of producing them

of a large size and regular form. Thomson’s Annals of Philosophy, New

Series, VOL. IX, pp. 27–29. _London_, January, 1825; VOL. X, pp.

389–390, November, 1825.

GRIFFIN (G. W.)

The Pearl-shell Fisheries of Queensland. U. S. Consular Reports, NO.

LV. _Washington_, August, 1885.

Also published in Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, VOL. VI, pp.

433–435. _Washington_, 1887.

GRILL (JOHAN ABRAHAM)

Bericht wie die Chinesen ächte Perlen nachmachen. Abhandlungen der

Königlichen Schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften for 1772, VOL.

XXXIV, pp. 88–90. _Leipzig_, 1776.

GRIMM (HERMANNI NICOLAI)

De piscatura margaritarum apud Insulam Manaar, non procul à Ceylon

sitam. Miscellanea Curiosa Medico-physicarum, obs. 36, pp. 99–107.

_Norimbergæ_, 1685.

GROSS (J. G.)

De Margaritis, earumque Virtute Medica. _Wirceburgi_, 1744. 4to.

GRYLLS (JAMES WILLYAMS)

The Pearl Fishery. “The New Monthly Magazine,” VOL. LXXXII, pp. 70–79.

_London_, January, 1848. The Out-station; or Jaunts in the Jungle.

_London_, 1848. 16mo.

GUIDO (JOANNIS)

De Mineralibus tractatus absolutissimus. _Francofurti_, 1627. 8vo.

GUILLEMAND (FRANCIS HENRY HILL)

Malaysia and the Pacific Archipelago. _London_, 1894. 8vo.

GÜNTHER (ALBERT)

A Small Fish of the Genus _Fierasfer_ Imbedded in the Shell of

_Margarita margaritifera_. Proceedings of the Zoölogical Society of

London, 1886, pp. 318–320.

HAGUE (W. F.)

On the Natural and Artificial Production of Pearls in China. Journal

of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, VOL. XVI,

pp. 280–284, 1856.

HALE (SARAH J.)

History of Pearls, Natural and Artificial. “Godey’s Magazine,” VOL.

XLVIII, pp. 533–537. _Philadelphia_, 1854.

HALL (ANNA MARIA)

Pearls and Pearl Divers of the Gulf of California. “St. James’s

Magazine,” Vol. II, pp. 289–295. _London_, October, 1861.

HALL (FRANCIS)

Colombia: its present state. _Philadelphia_, 1825. 12mo.

HAMILTON (ALEXANDER), _Captain_

A New Account of the East Indies. 2 vols. _Edinburgh_, 1727. 8vo.

HAMONVILLE (L. D’)

Les moules perlières de Billiers (_Mytilus edulis_). Bulletin de la

Société Zoologique de France, VOL. XIX, pp. 140–142. _Paris_, 1894.

HARDY (ROBERT WILLIAM HALL), _Lieut._

Travels in the Interior of Mexico, in 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828.

_London_, 1829. 8vo.

HARLEY (GEORGE)

Microscopic Examination of Pearls. “The Cheltenham Ladies’ College

Magazine,” NO. XVII, pp. 37–42. _London_, 1888.

HARLEY (GEORGE AND HAROLD S.)

The Chemical Composition of Pearls. Proceedings of the Royal Society

of London, VOL. XLIII, pp. 461–465, 1888. The Structural Arrangement

of the Mineral Matters in Sedimentary and Crystalline Pearls.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, VOL. XLV, pp. 612–614,

1889.

HARPER’S MAGAZINE

Pearls and Gems. “Harper’s New Monthly Magazine,” VOL. XXI, pp.

764–780. _New York_, November, 1860. Treasures of the Deep. “Harper’s

New Monthly Magazine,” VOL. LVIII, pp. 321–336. _New York_, February,

1879.

HARTING (PIETER)

Sur la production artificielle de quelques-unes des principales

formations calcaires organiques. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des

Sciences, VOL. LXXIII, pp. 361–362. _Paris_, 1871.

Also in Quarterly Journal Microscopic Science, VOL. XII, pp. 118–123.

_London_, 1872.

HARTMANN (PHILIPP JACOB)

Exercitatio de generatione mineralium, vegetabilum, et animalium in

aere. _Konigsberg_(?), 1689. 4to.

HASAN IBN YAZĪD (ABŪ ZAID) _Al-Sīrāfī_

Ancient Accounts of India and China, by two Mohammedan travellers who

went to those parts in the 9th Century. _London_, 1733. 8vo.

HAWKINS (RICHARD), _Sir_

The Observations of Sir Richard Hawkins in his Voyage into the South

Sea, in the Year 1593. Reprinted from the edition of 1622. _London_,

Hakluyt Society, 1847. 8vo.

HEEREN (ARNOLD HERMANN LUDWIG)

Historical Researches into the Politics, Intercourse and Trade of the

Principal Nations of Antiquity. 3 vols. _Oxford_, 1833. 8vo.

HERDMAN (WILLIAM ABBOTT)

The Pearl Fisheries of Ceylon. Abstract of a discourse delivered at

the Royal Institution on March 27, 1903. “Popular Science Monthly,”

VOL. LXIII, pp. 229–238, July, 1903.

Also in Smithsonian Report for 1904, pp. 485–493.

Presidential Address, 1905. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of

London, 117th Session, pp. 20–30, October, 1905.

Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl-Oyster Fisheries of

the Gulf of Manar. 5 vols. _London_, The Royal Society, 1903–1906.

4to.

The Pearl Fisheries of Ceylon. Proceedings of the Royal Institution of

Great Britain, VOL. XVII, pp. 279–287. _London_, March, 1905.

HERTZ (BRAM)

A Catalogue of the Collection of Pearls and Precious Stones formed by

H. P. Hope, Esq. _London_, 1839. Fol.

HESSE (P.)

Die Perlfishcherei im Roten Meere. Zoologischer Garten, VOL. XXXIX,

pp. 382–385. _Frankfurt-a.-M._, December, 1898.

HESSLING (THEODOR VON)

Ueber Perlen und ihre Entstehung. Westermann’s Illustrirten

Monatsheften, 1857.

Ueber die Ursachen der Perlbildung bei _Unio margaritifer_. Siebold

und Kölliker, Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, VOL. IX, pp.

543–546. _Leipzig_, 1858.

Die Perlmuscheln und ihre Perlen. _Leipzig_, 1859. 8vo.

Die Verbreitung der Seeperlenmuschel und der Perlfischerei.

Zeitschrift für die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften, VOL. XIV, pp.

17–32. _Halle_, 1859.

Ueber die Befruchtung der Flussperlenmuschel. Siebold und Kölliker,

Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, VOL. X, pp. 358–363.

_Leipzig_, 1860.

HILL (JOHN)

Theophrastus’s History of Stones, with the Greek Text and an English

Version, and Notes Critical and Philosophical, Including the Modern

History of Gems Described by that Author. _London_, 1746. 8vo.

HOLDSWORTH (EDMUND WILLIAM HUNT)

Report on the Conditions and Prospects of the Pearl Oyster Banks,

1868. _Colombo_, 1868. Fol.

HOME (EVERARD), _Sir_, _Bart._

On the Production and Formation of Pearls. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society of London, VOL. CXVI, pp. 338–341. _London_,

1826.

HORNELL (JAMES)

Biological Results of the Ceylon Pearl Fishery of 1904, with Notes on

Divers and Their Occupation. _Colombo_, 1905. 4to.

Report on the _Placuna placenta_ Pearl Fishery of Lake Tampalakamam.

Ceylon Marine Biological Reports, PART II, VOL. I, pp. 41–54.

_Colombo_, 1906.

Report on the Operations on the Pearl Banks During the Fishery of

1905. Ceylon Marine Biological Reports, PART II, VOL. I, pp. 55–79.

_Colombo_, 1906.

HUMBOLDT (FRIEDRICH HEINRICH ALEXANDER VON), _Baron_

Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New

Continent During the Years 1799–1804. 7 vols. _London_, 1814–29. 8vo.

IBN BATUTA

The Travels of Ibn Batuta. Translated from the original Arabic

manuscript copies ... by Samuel Lee. _London_, 1829. 4to.

IRVING (THEODORE)

The Conquest of Florida, under Hernando de Soto. 2 vols. _London_,

1835. 12mo.

ISSEL (ARTURO)

I Molluschi Commestibili, le Applicazioni delle Conchiglie, le Perle e

i Coralli. Annali dell’ Industria e del Commercio, 1880, num. 28.

_Roma_, 1881. 8vo.

JAHN (J. G.)

Die Perlenfischerei im Voigtlande. _Oelsnitz_, 1854. 8vo.

JAMESON (H. LYSTER)

On the Identity and Distribution of the Mother-of-pearl Oysters.

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1901, VOL. I, pp.

372–394.

On the Origin of Pearls. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of

London for 1902, VOL. I, pp. 140–166. The Formation of Pearls.

“Nature,” VOL. LXVII, pp. 280–282. _London_, January 22, 1903.

JARDINE (FRANK L.)

Report Relating to the Mergui Pearl and Pearl Shell Fisheries.

_Rangoon_, 1894. Fol.

JEFFREYS (JOHN GWYN)

British Conchology, or an Account of the Mollusca Which now Inhabit

the British Isles and the Surrounding Seas. 5 vols. _London_, 1862–69.

12mo.

JEFFRIES (DAVID)

Treatise on Diamonds and Pearls and the True Method of Manufacturing

Diamonds. _London_, 1750. 8vo.

A Treatise on Diamonds and Pearls. Fourth edition, corrected to the

present time. _London_, 1871. 12mo.

JONES (CHARLES COLCOCK)

Antiquities of the Southern Indians, Particularly of the Georgia

Tribes. _New York_, 1873. 8vo.

JONES (WILLIAM)

History and Mystery of Precious Stones. _London_, 1880. 8vo.

JOPP (ALEXANDER H.)

Days with Industries: Adventures and Experiences Among Curious

Industries. _London_, 1889. 8vo.

JORDANUS (CATALANI), _Bishop_

Mirabilia Descripta. The Wonders of the East, by Friar Jordanus

(_circa_ 1330). Translated by Col. Sir Henry Yule. _London_, Hakluyt

Society, 1863. 8vo.

KÆMPFER (ENGELBERT)

The History of Japan. 2 vols. _London_, 1727. Fol.

KAWALL (J. H.)

La pêche des perles en Livonie. Annales de la Société Malacologique de

Belgique, VOL. VII, pp. 38–46. _Brussels_, 1872.

KELAART (EDWARD FREDERICK)

Introductory Report on the Natural History of the Pearl-oyster of

Ceylon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, VOL. I, pp.

399–405, 1857.

Also in Madras Journal of Literature and Science, VOL. III, pp.

89–104, 1858.

Report on the Tablegam Pearl-oyster Fishery. Madras Journal of

Literature and Science, VOL. III, pp. 105–110, 1858.

Introductory Report on the Natural History of the Pearl-oyster of

Ceylon, 1858–59. _Trincomalee_, 1859.

Filaria in Oysters [Ceylon]. Proceedings of the Royal Physical

Society, VOL. II, pp. 101–102. _Edinburgh_, 1863.

KELAART (EDWARD FREDERICK) AND MÖBIUS (KARL)

On the Natural History of the Cingalese Pearl-oyster and on the

Production of Pearls. Annals of Natural History, 3rd series, VOL. I,

pp. 81–100. _London_, 1858.

KELLY (H. M.)

A Statistical Study of the Parasites of the Unionidæ. Illinois State

Laboratory of Natural History, VOL. V, pp. 399–418. _Springfield,

Ill._, 1899.

KENT (WILLIAM SAVILLE)

Report on the Pearl and Pearl Shell Fisheries of North Queensland.

_Brisbane_, 1890. Fol.

On the Experimental Cultivation of the Mother-of-pearl Shell in

Queensland. Report Australian Association, VOL. II, pp. 541–548.

_Sydney_, 1891.

The Great Barrier Reef of Australia; Its Products and Potentialities.

_London_, 1893. Fol.

KING (CHARLES WILLIAM)

The Natural History of Precious Stones and of the Precious Metals.

_London_, 1870. 8vo.

KINGSMILL (WALTER)

The Pearling Industry [of Western Australia]. Illustrated Handbook of

Western Australia. Paris International Exhibition, 1900. _Perth, W.

A._, 1900. 8vo.

KLEIN (JACOB THEODOR)

Tentamen Methodi Ostracologicæ sive Dispositio Naturalis Cochlidum et

Concharum. _Lugduni Batavorum_, 1753. 4to.

KLEIN (JOHANN)

De Jure circa Margaritas vulgo von dem Perlen-recht. Rostochii, 1700.

8vo.

KNAUTHE (KARL)

Perle in _Unio rostratus_. Zoologischer Garten, p. 155. _Berlin_,

1896.

KOGEL (J.)

Tripang- und Perlenfischerei in niederländischen Australien.

_Ausland_, 1857. 8vo.

KÜCHENMEISTER (FRIEDRICH)

Uebersetzung der Arbeit: “Sull’ origine delle Perle, del Dottore F. de

Filippi.” Nebst auf Untersuchungen gegründeten Anmerkungen. Müller’s

Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie, und wissenschaftliche Medicin, pp.

251–268. _Berlin_, 1856.

Ueber eine der häufigsten Ursachen der Elsterperlen und das Verfahren,

welches zur künstlichen Vermehrung der Perlen dem Königl.-Sächsischen

Ministerium der Finanzen vorgeschlagen wurde. Müller’s Archiv für

Anatomie, Physiologie, und wissenschaftliche Medicin, pp. 269–281.

_Berlin_, 1856.

KUNZ (GEORGE FREDERICK)

American Pearls. Proceedings of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 33rd meeting, pp. 665–674. _Salem_, 1885.

Precious Stones in the United States. “Harper’s Magazine,” VOL. LXXVI,

pp. 97–106. _New York_, December, 1887.

Gems and Precious Stones of North America. A Popular Description of

Their Occurrence, Value, History, Archæology, and of the Collections

in which they Exist, also a Chapter on Pearls and on Remarkable

Foreign Gems Owned in the United States. _New York_, 1890. 4to.

On the Occurrence of Pearls in the United States. Transactions of the

American Fishery Society, pp. 16–32. _New York_, 1893.

A Brief History of the Gathering of Fresh-water Pearls in the United

States. Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, VOL. XIII, pp. 321–330.

_Washington_, 1894.

On Pearls and the Application and Utilization of the Shells, etc., as

Shown at the World’s Columbian Exposition. Bulletin U. S. Fish

Commission, VOL. XIII, pp. 439–457. _Washington_, 1894.

The Fresh-water Pearls and Pearl Fisheries of the United States.

Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, VOL. XVII, pp. 373–426. _Washington_,

1898.

Fresh-water Pearls of America. “Nature,” VOL. LX, pp. 150–152. _New

York_, June 15, 1899.

Precious Stones of California. _Sacramento_, 1905. 8vo.

KUSNETZOW (I. D.)

Fischerei und Thiererbeutung in den Gewässern Russlands. _St.

Petersburg_, 1898. 8vo.

LAFERRIÈRE (J.)

De Paris à Guatémala. Notes de Voyages au Centre-Amérique, 1866–1875.

_Paris_, 1877. 8vo.

LANDAETA ROSALES (MANUEL)

Gran Recopilacion geografica, estadistica e historica de Venezuela. 2

vols. _Carácas_, 1889. Fol.

LANGERUS (JOHANNES)

De dulcissimo margaritas nomine de Margaritæ. Scriptorum Publice

propositorum a Gubernatoribus. _Vitebergæ_. 1555. Fol.

LASTEYRIE (FERDINAND DE)

Description du Trésor de Guarrazar. _Paris_, 1860. 4to.

LEACH (WILLIAM ELFORD)

The Zoologists Miscellany; being descriptions of new or interesting

animals. 3 vols. _London_, 1814–17. 8vo.

LE BECK (HENRY J.)

An Account of the Pearl Fishery in the Gulph of Manar in March and

April, 1797. Asiatic Researches, VOL. V, pp. 393 _et seq._ _London_,

1798.

LE COMTE (LOUIS)

Memoirs and Remarks ... Made in Above Ten Years’ Travel Through the

Empire of China: Particularly Upon Their Pottery, Varnishing, Silk,

and Pearl-fishing. _London_, 1737. 8vo.

LEDELIUS (SAMUEL)

De perlis Lusato-silesiacis. Miscellanea Curiosa, observatio 150, pp.

327–328. _Norimbergæ_, 1690.

LEONARDUS (CAMILLUS)

Speculum lapidum. _Venice_, 1502. 4to.

LEUWENHOECK (M.)

Microscopical Observations on the Salts of Pearls, Oyster-shells, etc.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London for 1707,

No. 311, pp. 2416–24.

LEWIS (JAMES)

On the Coloring Matter of Pearl-shells. Proceedings of the Academy of

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for 1860, pp. 88–89.

LEWIS (J. P.) AND HORNELL (JAMES)

Reports on the Pearl Fishery of 1904. Sessional Papers. _Colombo_,

1904. Fol.

Reports on the Pearl Fishery of 1905. Sessional Papers. _Colombo_,

1905. Fol.

LINSCHOTEN (JOHN HUYGHEN VAN)

The Voyage of John Huyghen van Linschoten to the East Indies. 2 vols.

_London_, Hakluyt Society, 1884. 8vo.

LISTER (MARTIN)

A Journey to Paris in the Year 1698. _London_, 1699. 8vo.

LONDON MAGAZINE

Pearls. “London Magazine,” VOL. XI, pp. 715–722. _London_, January,

1904.

LOPES DE CASTANHEDA (FERNHAM)

The First Booke of the Historie of the Discoverie and Conquest of the

East Indies, Enterprised by the Portingales. _London_, 1582. 4to.

LOPEZ DE GOMARA (FRANCISCO)

Historia general de las Indias con todo el descubrimiento y cosas

notables que han acaecido desde que se ganaron hasta el año de 1551.

_Çaragoça_, 1552. Fol.

LOVELL (ROBERT)

Panmineralogicon, or an Universal History of Minerals, containing the

summe of all Authors. _Oxford_, 1661. 8vo.

LOVETZKY

Notice sur les perles du gouvernement de Viatka. Bulletin de la

Société des Naturalistes. _Moscou_, 1830.

LOW (FRANZ)

Die Flussperlenmuscheln-fischerei in der Moldau in Böhmen.

Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft, pp. 333–336.

_Wien_, 1859.

LUCATT

Rovings in the Pacific from 1837 to 1849. 2 vols. _London_, 1851. 8vo.

M.

L’Histoire Naturelle éclaircie dans deux de ses parties principales,

La Lithologie et la Conchyliogie dont l’une traite des pierres et

l’autre des Coquillages ... par M... de la Société Royale des Sciences

de Montpellier. _Paris_, 1742. 4to.

MCCULLOCH (JOHN RAMSAY)

Article “Pearls.” Dictionary of Commerce. _London_, 1882. 8vo.

MACDONALD (ALEXANDER C.)

In Search of El Dorado: a Wanderer’s Experiences. _London_, 1905. 8vo.

MACGOWAN (D. T.)

Pearls and Pearl-making in China. Journal of the Society of Arts, VOL.

II, pp. 72–75. _London_, Dec. 16, 1853.

MCINTOSH (WILLIAM CARMICHAEL)

The Story of a Pearl. “The Zoologist,” No. 752, VOL. LXII, pp. 41–56.

_London_, February, 1904.

MALCOLM (JOHN), _Sir_

Sketches of Persia, from the Journals of a Traveller in the East. 2

vols. _London_, 1827. 8vo.

MANDEVILLE (JOHN), _Sir_

Le Grand Lapidaire, où sont déclarez les noms de Pierres orientales,

avec les Vertues et Propriétés d’icelles, aussi les isles et pays où

elles croissent. _Paris_, 1561. 12mo.

MARBODUS, _Bishop of Rennes_

Marbodei, Galli poetae vetustissimi de lapidibus pretiosis encheridion

cum scholiis Pictorii Villingensis. _Paris_, 1531. 8vo.

Liber Lapidum seu de Gemmis varietate lectionis et perpetua

annotatione illustratus a Johanne Beckmanno. _Gottingæ_, 1799. 8vo.

MARIOT

La reproduction des huîtres perlières aux îles Tuamotu. Bulletin de la

Société d’Acclimatation, VOL. I, pp. 341–342. _Paris_, 1874.

MARKHAM (CLEMENTS ROBERTS)

Tinnevelly Pearl Banks. “Intelligent Observer,” VOL. IV, pp. 418–426.

_London_, January, 1864.

Also in “Electric Magazine,” VOL. CXI, pp. 496–501. _London_, April,

1864.

The Tinnevelly Pearl Fishery. Journal of the Society of Arts, VOL. XV,

pp. 256–262. _London_, March 1, 1867.

MARTENS (GEORG VON)

Purpur und Perlen. _Berlin_, 1874. 8vo.

MAUNDER (SAMUEL)

The Treasury of Natural History. _London_, 1878. 12mo.

MECKEL VON HEMSBACH (JOHANN HEINRICH)

Mikrogeologie. Ueber die Concremente im thierischen Organismus. Nach

des Verfassers Tode herausgegeben und bevorwortet von T. Billroth.

_Berlin_, 1856. 8vo.

MÉRY (M.)

Remarques faites sur la Moule des Estangs. Histoires de l’Académie

Royale des Sciences, November 22, 1710, pp. 408–426. _Paris_, 1732.

4to.

MEXIA (PEDRO) AND SANSOVINO (M. FRANCESCO)

Treasurie of Auncient and Moderne Times. 2 vols. _London_, 1619. Fol.

MIDDENDORF (ALEXANDER VON)

Reise in den äussersten Norden und Osten Siberiens während der Jahre

1843 und 1844, VOL. II, Zoologie. _St. Petersburg_, 1851. 4to.

MILBURN (WILLIAM)

Oriental Commerce; Containing a Geographical Description of the

Principal Places in the East Indies, China and Japan, with Their

Produce. 2 vols. _London_, 1813. 4to.

MITSUKURI (K.)

The Cultivation of Marine and Fresh-water Animals in Japan. Bulletin

of the Bureau of Fisheries for 1884, VOL. XXIV, pp. 257–289.

_Washington_, 1905.

MÖBIUS (KARL)

Die echten Perlen. Ein Beitrag zur Luxus-, Handels- und

Naturgeschichte derselben. _Hamburg_, 1858. 4to.

MONARDES (NICOLAS)

Delle cose che vengono portate dall’ Indie Occidentali, pertinenti

all’ uso della medicina. _Venetia_, 1575. 12mo.

MOQUIN-TANDON (M.) AND CLOQUET (J. S.)

Sur la production artificielle des perles, rapport fait à la Société

d’Acclimatation, 1858. Journal de Conchyliologie, VOL. X, pp. 87–88.

_Paris_, 1858.

MORESBY (JOHN)

New Guinea and Polynesia. Discoveries and Surveys in New Guinea and

the D’Entrecasteaux Islands: a Cruise in Polynesia and Visits to the

Pearl-shelling Stations in Torres Straits, of H. M. S. Basilisk.

_London_, 1876. 8vo.

MORIER (JAMES P.)

A Journey Through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, to Constantinople,

in the Years 1808 and 1809. _London_, 1812. 8vo.

MOYNIER DE VILLEPOIX (R.)

Recherches sur la formation et l’accroissement de la coquille des

mollusques. Journal de l’Anatomie et de la Physiologie, VOL. XXVIII,

pp. 461–518. _Paris_, 1892.

MÜLLER (FELIX)

Über die Schalenbildung bei Lamellibranchiaten. Schneider’s

Zoologische Beiträge, VOL. I, pp. 206–246. _Breslau_, 1885.

NALDI (PIO)

Delle Gemme, e delle regole per valutarle. 2 vols. _Bologna_, 1791.

8vo.

NATHUSIUS-KÖNIGSBORN (W. VON)

Über die Gestaltungsursachen der Haare, der Eischalen, der

Molluskenschalen und der Harting’schen Körperchen. Archiv für

Entwickelungsmechanik der Organismen, VOL. VI, pp. 365–393. _Leipzig_,

1898.

NICHOLS (THOMAS)

A Lapidary; or, the History of Pretious Stones; with Cautions for the

Undeceiving of all those that deal with Pretious Stones. _Cambridge,

England_, 1652. 4to.

NIEBUHR (CARSTEN)

Beschreibung von Arabien. _Kopenhagen_, 1772. 4to.

NILSSON (SVEN)

Historia molluscorum Sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter

delineata. _Lundæ_, 1822. 8vo.

NISBET (JOHN)

Burma under English Rule and Before. 2 vols. _Westminster_, 1901. 8vo.

NITSCHE (HINRICH)

See- und Süsswasser-Perlen. Internationale Fischerei-Ausstellung zu

Berlin, 1880, pp. 83–95. _Berlin_, 1881. 8vo.

Die Süsswasserperlen auf der internationalen Fischerei-Ausstellung zu

Berlin, 1880. Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malakozoologischen

Gesellschaft, pp. 49–64. _Frankfurt_, 1882.

NOÉ (LOUIS PANTALÉON JUDE AMÉDÉE DE), _Count_

Mémoires relatifs à l’expedition anglaise partie du Bengale en 1800

pour aller combattre en Égypte l’armée d’Orient. _Paris_, 1826. 8vo.

NUÑEZ CABECA DE VACA (ALVAR)

La relacion que dio Alvar Nunez Cabeca de Vaca de lo acaescido enlas

Indias enla armada donde yua por gouernador Paphilo de Narbaez.

_Valladolid_, 1542. 4to. See SMITH (BUCKINGHAM).

OLAUS (MAGNUS)

Historia de Gentium Septentrionalium variis conditionibus. _Basileæ_,

1567. Fol.

OSBORN (HENRY LESLIE)

Observations on the Parasitism of _Anodonta plana_, etc. Zoological

Bulletin, pp. 301–310. _New York_, 1898.

OTTÉ (E. C.)

The Oriental Pearl. “Macmillan’s Magazine,” VOL. IV, pp. 229–237.

_London_, July, 1861.

OUSELEY (WILLIAM), _Sir_

Travels in Various Countries of the East; More Particularly Persia,

etc. 3 vols. _London_, 1819–23. 4to.

OVIEDO Y VALDES (GONZALO FERNANDEZ DE)

Historia natural y general de las Indias. _Toledo_, 1526. Fol.

PAGENSTECHER (HERMANN ALEXANDER)

Trematodenlarven und Trematoden. Helminthologischer Beitrag.

_Heidelberg_, 1857. Fol.

Ueber Perlenbildung. Siebold und Kölliker Zeitschrift für

wissenschaftliche Zoologie, VOL. IX, pp. 496–505. _Leipzig_, 1858.

Also in Verhandlungen des Naturhistorisch-medicinischen Vereins, pp.

157–158. _Heidelberg_, 1859.

PALGRAVE (WILLIAM GIFFORD)

Narrative of a Year’s Journey Through Central and Eastern Arabia

(1862–63). _London_, 1865. 8vo.

PANCIROLI (GUIDO)

Rerum memorabilium jam olim deperditarum. _Ambergæ_, 1599. 8vo.

PARAZZOLI (A.)

La Pesca nel Mar Rosso. Bollettino della Società di Esplorazioni

commerciali di Africa, pp. 177–190. _Milano_, June, 1898.

PENFIELD (FREDERIC COURTLAND)

The Lure of the Pearl. “The Century Magazine,” VOL. LXXIII, pp. 61–77.

_New York_, November, 1906.

PENNANT (THOMAS)

British Zoology. 4 vols. _London_, 1768–70. 8vo.

A Tour in Scotland in 1769. _Chester_, 1771. 8vo.

PERCIVAL (ROBERT)

An Account of the Island of Ceylon. _London_, 1803. 4to.

PEREZ Y HERNANDEZ (JOSÉ MARIA)

Estadistica de la Republica Mejicana. _Guadalajara_, 1862. 4to.

PERLE ET ALGIOFAR

Tesoro delle Gioie Tratto Curioso, ... come Perle, Gemme, Auori,

Unicorni, Bezzari, Cocco, Malacca, Balsami, Contraherba, Muschio,

Ambra, Zelieto. _Padoua_, 1630. 12mo.

PERRIER (EDMOND) AND FALCO (ALPHONSE)

Rapports du Jury International. Classe 53.—Engins, instruments et

produits de la pêche.—Aquiculture. _Paris_, Imprimerie Nationale,

1901. Fol.

PETAU

Observations sur les moules d’étang dans lesquelles on a trouvé des

Perles. Mémoire de l’Académie des Sciences, pp. 23–24. _Paris_, 1769.

PFEIFFER (IDA LAURA)

Eine Frauenfahrt um die Welt. 3 vols. _Wien_, 1850. 8vo.

PFIZMAIER (AUGUST)

Beiträge zur Geschichte der Perlen. Sitzungsberichte der

philosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der

Wissenschaften, VOL. LVII, pp. 617–654. _Wien_, 1868.

PHILOSTRATUS

Philostratorum quæ supersunt omnia ... accessere Apollonii Tyanensis

Epistolæ, Eusebii liber adversus Hieroclem, Callistrati descript.

_Lipsiæ_, 1709. Fol.

PLAT (HUGH), _Sir_

The Jewel House of Art and Nature.... Whereunto is added a rare and

excellent Discourse of Minerals, Stones, Gums, and Resins. _London_,

1653. 4to.

PLINIUS SECUNDUS (CAIUS)

C. Plinii Naturalis Historia. D. Detlefsen recensuit. 6 vols.

_Berolini_, 1866–82. 8vo. The Historie of the World, Commonly called

the Naturall Historie of C. Plinius Secundus. Translated into English

by Philemon Holland, Doctor of Physick. 2 vols. _London_, 1601. Fol.

POLO (MARCO)

La Description géographique des provinces et villes plus fameuses de

l’Inde Orientale. _Paris_, 1556. 4to. The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the

Venetian, concerning the kingdoms and marvels of the East. Newly

translated and edited, with notes, by H. Yule. 2 vols. _London_, 1871.

8vo.

PORTER (ROBERT KER), _Sir_

Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia, ... during the

Years 1817, 1818, 1819 and 1820. _London_, 1821–22. 4to.

POUGET (JEAN HENRI PROSPER)

Traité des Pierres précieuses, et de la manière de les employer en

parure. 2 vols. _Paris_, 1762. 4to.

PRATT (CHARLES STUART)

Pearls and Mother-of-pearl. “Popular Science Monthly,” VOL. XLIX, pp.

390–398. _New York_, July, 1896.

PRIDHAM (CHARLES)

An Historical, Political and Statistical Account of Ceylon and its

Dependencies. 2 vols. _London_, 1849. 8vo.

PROCOPIUS (OF CÆSAREA)

The History of the Warres of the Emperor Justinian ... Written in

Greek by Procopius ... and Englished by H. Holcroft, Knight. _London_,

1653. Fol.

PUJOL (T. F.)

Estudio Biológico sobre la ostra _Avicula margaritiferus_. Boletin de

la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, VOL. II, pp. 139–150.

_Mexico_, 1859.

PULTENEY (RICHARD)

A General View of the Writings of Linnæus. Second edition. _London_,

1805. 4to.

PUTNAM (F. W.)

Notes on _Fierasfer dubius_ from Panama Pearl-oysters. Proceedings of

the Boston Society of Natural History, VOL. XVI, pp. 343–346. Boston,

1874.

PUTON (ERNEST)

Mollusques terrestres et fluviales des Vosges: Le Département des

Vosges, statistique, historique, et administrative, par Henri Lepaye

et Ch. Charton. 2 vols. _Nancy_, 1845. 8vo.

QUEENSLAND REPORT

Departmental Commission on Pearl-shell and Bêche-de-mer Fisheries.

Report, Together With the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings of the

Commission Appointed to Inquire into the General Working of the Laws

Regulating the Pearl-shell and Bêche-de-mer Fisheries of the Colony.

_Brisbane_, 1897. Fol.

QUIÉVREUX (H.), _Consul de France_

La pêche des perles au Venezuela. Revue Maritime, VOL. CXLVI, pp.

444–448. _Paris_, August, 1900.

RAINERI (ANTONIO)

Fior di pensieri sulle Pietre Preziose di Ahmad Teifascite. _Firenze_,

1818. 8vo.

RAU (SEBOLD FULCO JAN)

Specimen Arabicum, continens descriptionem et excerpta libri Achmedis

Teifaschii “De Gemmis et Lapidibus Pretiosis.” _Trajecti ad Rhenum_,

1784. 4to.

RÉAUMUR (RENÉ ANTOINE FERCHAULT DE)

Sur la Matière qui colore les Perles fausses, et sur quelques autres

Matières animales d’une semblable couleur; à l’occasion de quoi on

essaye d’expliquer la formation des Ecailles des Poissons. Histoire de

l’Académie Royale des Sciences, 1716, pp. 229–244. _Paris_, 1716.

Observations sur le coquillage appellé _Pinne marine_ ou Nacre de

perle, à l’occasion dequel on explique la formation des perles.

Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences, pp. 177–194. _Paris_, 1717.

Betrachtungen von der Seemuschel (_Pinna marina_), oder Perlmutter

genannt. Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Paris. _Breslau_,

1753. 8vo.

REDDING (ROBERT), _Sir_

Structure, Color, etc., of Irish pearls. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London, VOL. XVIII, p. 659, October 13, 1688.

A Letter Concerning Pearl-fishing in the North of Ireland.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, VOL. XVIII,

pp. 659–663. _London_, 1693.

REINAUD (JOSEPH TOUISSAINT)

Fragments Arabes et Persans inédits relatifs à l’Inde antérieurment au

xi^e siècle de l’ère chrétienne. _Paris_, 1845. 8vo.

Mémoire géographique, historique et scientifique sur l’Inde

antérieurement au milieu du xi^e siècle de l’ère chrétienne d’après

les écrivains arabes, persans et chinois. _Paris_, 1849. 4to.

RENAUDOT, _Abbé_

Ancient Accounts of India and China by two Mohammedan Travellers.

_London_, 1733. 8vo.

RIBEIRO (JOÃO), _Capitano_

Histoire de l’Isle de Ceylon ... traduite du Portugais par Monsr.

l’Abbé Le Grand. _Amsterdam_, 1701. 12mo.

History of Ceylon. _Ceylon_, 1847. 8vo.

RONDELETIUS (GULIELMUS)

Universæ Aquitilium Historiæ Pars Altera. _Lugduni_, 1554. Fol.

ROSENBERG (H. VON)

Perlenfischerei auf den Aru-Inseln. Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen

Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, pp. 29–40. _Frankfurt_, 1884.

ROSNEL (PIERRE DE)

Le Mercure Indien, ou le Trésor des Indes ... Seconde partie, dans

laquelle est traitté des pierres préciouses et des perles, ... avec un

traitté sommaire des autres pierres moins précieuses. _Paris_, 1672.

4to.

ROTHSCHILD (M. D.)

A Hand-book of Precious Stones. _New York_ and _London_, 1890. 12mo.

ROUGEMONT (LOUIS DE)

The Adventures of Louis de Rougemont, as Told by Himself.

_Philadelphia_, 1900. 8vo.

RUEUS (FRANCISCUS)

De Gemmis aliquot, iis praesertim quarum divus Joannes Apostolus in

sua Apocalypsi meminit. _Parisiis_, 1547. 8vo.

RUMPH (GEORG EVERHARD)

Thesaurus imaginum piscium, testaceorum, ut et cochlearum, accedunt

conchylia, conchæ univalviæ et bivalviæ denique mineralia. _Lugduni

Batavarum_, 1711. Fol.

RUSCHENBERGER (WILLIAM S. W.)

A Voyage Round the World; Including an Embassy to Muscat and Siam.

_Philadelphia_, 1838. 8vo.

RZACZYNSKI (GABRIEL)

Historia naturalis regni Poloniæ, Magni Ducatus Lituaniæ, annexarumque

provinciarum. _Sandomiriæ_, 1721. 4to.

SAINT LAURENT (JOANNON DE)

Description abrégée du fameux Cabinet de M. le Chevalier de Baillou,

pour servir à l’histoire naturelle des pierres précieuses, métaux,

minéraux, et autres fossiles. _Luques_, 1746. 4to.

SANDIUS (CHRISTOPHER)

On the Origin of Pearls. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London, 1674. No. 101, p. 11. _London_, 1674.

SANGER (J. P.), _General_

Census of the Philippine Islands, Taken Under the Direction of the

Philippine Commission in 1903, VOL. IV, pp. 533–536. _Washington_,

1905.

SCHMID (JOACHIMUS)

De Margaritis. _Wittebergæ_, 1667. 8vo.

SCHOLTZ (H.)

Schlesien’s Land- und Süsswasser-Mollusken systematisch geordnet und

beschrieben. _Breslau_, 1843. 8vo.

SEEMAN (BARTHOLD)

Narrative of the Voyage of H. M. S. Herald, During the Years 1845–51,

Under the Command of Capt. Henry Kellet. 2 vols. _London_, 1853. 8vo.

SEPTALA (LUDOVICO)

Ludovici Septalii de Margaritis nuper ad nos allatis, judicium, etc.

_Mediolani_, 1618. 4to.

SERVANTUS (CLAVIUS)

De piscatura margaritarum. Miscellanea Curiosa Medico-physica, p. 417.

_Francofurti_, 1684.

SEURAT (L. G.)

L’Huître Perlière: Nacre et Perles. _Paris_ (1900). 12mo.

Observations sur l’évolution de l’Huître perlière des Tuamotu et des

Gambier. _Rikitea_, 1904. 8vo.

The Pearl-forming Properties of the Parasite _Tylocephalum

margaritiferæ_. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. _Paris_,

March 26, 1906. Le Nacre et la Perle en Océanie. Pêche, origine et

mode de formation des Perles. Bulletin du Musée Océangraphique de

Monaco, NO. LXXV, May 20, 1906. _Monaco_, 1906. 8vo.

SHIPLEY (ARTHUR E.)

Pearls and Parasites. “The Quarterly Review,” VOL. CCII, pp. 485–496.

_London_, 1905.

SHIPLEY (ARTHUR E.) AND HORNELL (JAMES)

The Parasites of the Pearl-oyster. Supplementary Report, Herdman’s

Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, VOL. II. _London_, 1904.

Further Report on Parasites Found in Connection with the Pearl-oyster

Fishery at Ceylon. Herdman’s Report on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of

the Gulf of Manaar, PART III, pp. 49–56. _London_, 1905. 4to.

SHIPP (BARNARD)

History of Hernando de Soto and Florida. _Philadelphia_, 1881. 8vo.

SIEBOLD (CARL THEODOR ERNST VON)