The Thompson country in British Columbia is not so unique but it is differentiated by the use of nephrite, sometimes called jade, a special form of stone scraper, etc.
Between these two centers, particularly in the Yakima Valley, Washington, is found a less intense culture having some of the peculiarities of the two flanking centers.
10. North Pacific Coast Area. Very little is known of the archæology here, except in the vicinity of Puget Sound, where the investigations of Smith[1] reveal an early historical connection with Area 9. As this locality is truly marginal to the area, we assume that the true center lies northward, since we find there some evidences of a culture directly antecedent to that of the historic tribes.
11. The Arctic Area. The only noteworthy archæological work in this area was by Dall[2] and Jochelson in the Aleutians, Solberg[3] in Greenland, and Stéfansson[4] at Point Barrow and Franklin Bay. Though relic-bearing deposits of considerable depth have been reported by these explorers, their great antiquity has not been established; and while some changes in culture have been noted, these are, in the main, but variants of the historic Eskimo culture. A description of the artifacts is, therefore, unnecessary.
12. The Canadian Area. By the mere process of elimination we have left the whole interior of Canada. Practically no archæological work has been done here except in the southern border, where, as may be anticipated, the cultures are marginal to those of the adjoining areas. The reports of missionaries and explorers lead us to suspect that it is the weakest archæological area on the continent.
13. Northern Mexico. In turning to the southern extension of the continent, we approach a difficult task. The problem is not only complex, but further complicated by the lack of definite knowledge. We have already sketched the cultures found here by the Spanish invaders, but an empirical grouping of the archæological artifacts gathered from this general region introduces an unknown chronological factor, which may give quite a different result from our previous grouping by historical data. Holmes[5] proposes five archæological areas which we
