8

In the second chapter of his “Finger Prints,” which treats of the previous use of them, Galton refers also to many impressions of fingers found on ancient pottery, as on Roman tiles.  These nail marks, used ornamentally by potters, especially in prehistoric pottery, are well known to every archeologist, but they move on a line in psychological and technical regard entirely different from the finger--print system and can not by any means be connected with its history, as Galton inclines to establish.  Thus also the coin of the T'ang dynasty, “bearing a nail mark of the Empress Wen--te in relief” and figured by Galton, does not belong at all to this category.  The Chinese works on numismatics (e.g., K'in--ting ts'ien lu, ch. 11, p. 2, ch. 16, p. 14) explain this mark occurring on many issues of the T'ang and Sung dynasties – apparently the mark of a mint – as a picture of the crescent of the moon.  Handcock (Mesopotamian Archeology, London, 1912, p. 83) has an allusion to “finger--marked bricks” of the Sargon period.  This vague hint, from which no inference whatever as to the use of these marks for identification can be drawn, has led astray a well--known egyptologist into proclaiming the origin of the invention of finger prints in Babylonia, but as this statement appeared only in sensational newspaper reports, I refrain from discussing it.  Finger marks may naturally arise anywhere where potters handle bricks or jars, but every expert in finger prints will agree with me that these are so superficial as to render them useless for identification.  A clear and useful finger impression in clay presupposes a willful and energetic action, while the potter touches the clay but slightly.  However, this may be, we are not willing to admit as evidence for a finger--print system any finger marks of whatever kind occurring in pottery of any part of the world, unless strict proof can be furnished that such marks have actually served for the purpose of identification.