diff --git a/ciphers/prehistoric_men.txt b/ciphers/prehistoric_men.txt
index a58e533a8..8d1b2bd8c 100644
--- a/ciphers/prehistoric_men.txt
+++ b/ciphers/prehistoric_men.txt
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ Transcriber's note:
       version referred to above. One example of this might
       occur in the second paragraph under "Choppers and
       Adze-like Tools", page 46, which contains the phrase
-      “an adze cutting edge is ? shaped”. The symbol before
-      “shaped” looks like a sharply-italicized sans-serif “L”.
+      �an adze cutting edge is ? shaped�. The symbol before
+      �shaped� looks like a sharply-italicized sans-serif �L�.
       Devices that cannot display that symbol may substitute
       a question mark, a square, or other symbol.
 
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ forced or pedantic; at least I have done my very best to tell the story
 simply and clearly.
 
 Many friends have aided in the preparation of the book. The whimsical
-charm of Miss Susan Richert’s illustrations add enormously to the
+charm of Miss Susan Richert�s illustrations add enormously to the
 spirit I wanted. She gave freely of her own time on the drawings and
 in planning the book with me. My colleagues at the University of
 Chicago, especially Professor Wilton M. Krogman (now of the University
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ the Department of Anthropology, gave me counsel in matters bearing on
 their special fields, and the Department of Anthropology bore some of
 the expense of the illustrations. From Mrs. Irma Hunter and Mr. Arnold
 Maremont, who are not archeologists at all and have only an intelligent
-layman’s notion of archeology, I had sound advice on how best to tell
+layman�s notion of archeology, I had sound advice on how best to tell
 the story. I am deeply indebted to all these friends.
 
 While I was preparing the second edition, I had the great fortune
@@ -117,13 +117,13 @@ Washburn, now of the Department of Anthropology of the University of
 California, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters with Professor
 Hallum L. Movius, Jr., of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University. The
 book has gained greatly in accuracy thereby. In matters of dating,
-Professor Movius and the indications of Professor W. F. Libby’s Carbon
+Professor Movius and the indications of Professor W. F. Libby�s Carbon
 14 chronology project have both encouraged me to choose the lowest
 dates now current for the events of the Pleistocene Ice Age. There is
 still no certain way of fixing a direct chronology for most of the
-Pleistocene, but Professor Libby’s method appears very promising for
+Pleistocene, but Professor Libby�s method appears very promising for
 its end range and for proto-historic dates. In any case, this book
-names “periods,” and new dates may be written in against mine, if new
+names �periods,� and new dates may be written in against mine, if new
 and better dating systems appear.
 
 I wish to thank Dr. Clifford C. Gregg, Director of Chicago Natural
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ Clark Howell of the Department of Anthropology of the University of
 Chicago in reworking the earlier chapters, and he was very patient in
 the matter, which I sincerely appreciate.
 
-All of Mrs. Susan Richert Allen’s original drawings appear, but a few
+All of Mrs. Susan Richert Allen�s original drawings appear, but a few
 necessary corrections have been made in some of the charts and some new
 drawings have been added by Mr. John Pfiffner, Staff Artist, Chicago
 Natural History Museum.
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ HOW WE LEARN about Prehistoric Men
 
 
 Prehistory means the time before written history began. Actually, more
-than 99 per cent of man’s story is prehistory. Man is at least half a
+than 99 per cent of man�s story is prehistory. Man is at least half a
 million years old, but he did not begin to write history (or to write
 anything) until about 5,000 years ago.
 
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ The scientists who study the bones and teeth and any other parts
 they find of the bodies of prehistoric men, are called _physical
 anthropologists_. Physical anthropologists are trained, much like
 doctors, to know all about the human body. They study living people,
-too; they know more about the biological facts of human “races” than
+too; they know more about the biological facts of human �races� than
 anybody else. If the police find a badly decayed body in a trunk,
 they ask a physical anthropologist to tell them what the person
 originally looked like. The physical anthropologists who specialize in
@@ -228,14 +228,14 @@ ARCHEOLOGISTS
 
 There is a kind of scientist who studies the things that prehistoric
 men made and did. Such a scientist is called an _archeologist_. It is
-the archeologist’s business to look for the stone and metal tools, the
+the archeologist�s business to look for the stone and metal tools, the
 pottery, the graves, and the caves or huts of the men who lived before
 history began.
 
 But there is more to archeology than just looking for things. In
-Professor V. Gordon Childe’s words, archeology “furnishes a sort of
+Professor V. Gordon Childe�s words, archeology �furnishes a sort of
 history of human activity, provided always that the actions have
-produced concrete results and left recognizable material traces.” You
+produced concrete results and left recognizable material traces.� You
 will see that there are at least three points in what Childe says:
 
   1. The archeologists have to find the traces of things left behind by
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ will see that there are at least three points in what Childe says:
      too soft or too breakable to last through the years. However,
 
   3. The archeologist must use whatever he can find to tell a story--to
-     make a “sort of history”--from the objects and living-places and
+     make a �sort of history�--from the objects and living-places and
      graves that have escaped destruction.
 
 What I mean is this: Let us say you are walking through a dump yard,
@@ -253,8 +253,8 @@ and you find a rusty old spark plug. If you want to think about what
 the spark plug means, you quickly remember that it is a part of an
 automobile motor. This tells you something about the man who threw
 the spark plug on the dump. He either had an automobile, or he knew
-or lived near someone who did. He can’t have lived so very long ago,
-you’ll remember, because spark plugs and automobiles are only about
+or lived near someone who did. He can�t have lived so very long ago,
+you�ll remember, because spark plugs and automobiles are only about
 sixty years old.
 
 When you think about the old spark plug in this way you have
@@ -264,8 +264,8 @@ It is the same way with the man-made things we archeologists find
 and put in museums. Usually, only a few of these objects are pretty
 to look at; but each of them has some sort of story to tell. Making
 the interpretation of his finds is the most important part of the
-archeologist’s job. It is the way he gets at the “sort of history of
-human activity” which is expected of archeology.
+archeologist�s job. It is the way he gets at the �sort of history of
+human activity� which is expected of archeology.
 
 
 SOME OTHER SCIENTISTS
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ There are many other scientists who help the archeologist and the
 physical anthropologist find out about prehistoric men. The geologists
 help us tell the age of the rocks or caves or gravel beds in which
 human bones or man-made objects are found. There are other scientists
-with names which all begin with “paleo” (the Greek word for “old”). The
+with names which all begin with �paleo� (the Greek word for �old�). The
 _paleontologists_ study fossil animals. There are also, for example,
 such scientists as _paleobotanists_ and _paleoclimatologists_, who
 study ancient plants and climates. These scientists help us to know
@@ -306,20 +306,20 @@ systems.
 The rate of disappearance of radioactivity as time passes.[1]]
 
   [1] It is important that the limitations of the radioactive carbon
-      “dating” system be held in mind. As the statistics involved in
+      �dating� system be held in mind. As the statistics involved in
       the system are used, there are two chances in three that the
-      “date” of the sample falls within the range given as plus or
-      minus an added number of years. For example, the “date” for the
-      Jarmo village (see chart), given as 6750 ± 200 B.C., really
+      �date� of the sample falls within the range given as plus or
+      minus an added number of years. For example, the �date� for the
+      Jarmo village (see chart), given as 6750 � 200 B.C., really
       means that there are only two chances in three that the real
       date of the charcoal sampled fell between 6950 and 6550 B.C.
       We have also begun to suspect that there are ways in which the
-      samples themselves may have become “contaminated,” either on
+      samples themselves may have become �contaminated,� either on
       the early or on the late side. We now tend to be suspicious of
       single radioactive carbon determinations, or of determinations
       from one site alone. But as a fabric of consistent
       determinations for several or more sites of one archeological
-      period, we gain confidence in the “dates.”
+      period, we gain confidence in the dates.
 
 
 HOW THE SCIENTISTS FIND OUT
@@ -330,9 +330,9 @@ about prehistoric men. We also need a word about _how_ they find out.
 All our finds came by accident until about a hundred years ago. Men
 digging wells, or digging in caves for fertilizer, often turned up
 ancient swords or pots or stone arrowheads. People also found some odd
-pieces of stone that didn’t look like natural forms, but they also
-didn’t look like any known tool. As a result, the people who found them
-gave them queer names; for example, “thunderbolts.” The people thought
+pieces of stone that didn�t look like natural forms, but they also
+didn�t look like any known tool. As a result, the people who found them
+gave them queer names; for example, �thunderbolts.� The people thought
 the strange stones came to earth as bolts of lightning. We know now
 that these strange stones were prehistoric stone tools.
 
@@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ story of cave men on Mount Carmel, in Palestine, began to be known.
 Planned archeological digging is only about a century old. Even before
 this, however, a few men realized the significance of objects they dug
 from the ground; one of these early archeologists was our own Thomas
-Jefferson. The first real mound-digger was a German grocer’s clerk,
+Jefferson. The first real mound-digger was a German grocer�s clerk,
 Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann made a fortune as a merchant, first
 in Europe and then in the California gold-rush of 1849. He became an
 American citizen. Then he retired and had both money and time to test
@@ -389,16 +389,16 @@ used had been a soft, unbaked mud-brick, and most of the debris
 consisted of fallen or rain-melted mud from these mud-bricks.
 
 This idea of _stratification_, like the cake layers, was already a
-familiar one to the geologists by Schliemann’s time. They could show
+familiar one to the geologists by Schliemann�s time. They could show
 that their lowest layer of rock was oldest or earliest, and that the
-overlying layers became more recent as one moved upward. Schliemann’s
+overlying layers became more recent as one moved upward. Schliemann�s
 digging proved the same thing at Troy. His first (lowest and earliest)
 city had at least nine layers above it; he thought that the second
-layer contained the remains of Homer’s Troy. We now know that Homeric
+layer contained the remains of Homer�s Troy. We now know that Homeric
 Troy was layer VIIa from the bottom; also, we count eleven layers or
 sub-layers in total.
 
-Schliemann’s work marks the beginnings of modern archeology. Scholars
+Schliemann�s work marks the beginnings of modern archeology. Scholars
 soon set out to dig on ancient sites, from Egypt to Central America.
 
 
@@ -410,21 +410,21 @@ Archeologists began to get ideas as to the kinds of objects that
 belonged together. If you compared a mail-order catalogue of 1890 with
 one of today, you would see a lot of differences. If you really studied
 the two catalogues hard, you would also begin to see that certain
-objects “go together.” Horseshoes and metal buggy tires and pieces of
+objects �go together.� Horseshoes and metal buggy tires and pieces of
 harness would begin to fit into a picture with certain kinds of coal
 stoves and furniture and china dishes and kerosene lamps. Our friend
 the spark plug, and radios and electric refrigerators and light bulbs
 would fit into a picture with different kinds of furniture and dishes
-and tools. You won’t be old enough to remember the kind of hats that
-women wore in 1890, but you’ve probably seen pictures of them, and you
-know very well they couldn’t be worn with the fashions of today.
+and tools. You won�t be old enough to remember the kind of hats that
+women wore in 1890, but you�ve probably seen pictures of them, and you
+know very well they couldn�t be worn with the fashions of today.
 
 This is one of the ways that archeologists study their materials.
 The various tools and weapons and jewelry, the pottery, the kinds
 of houses, and even the ways of burying the dead tend to fit into
 pictures. Some archeologists call all of the things that go together to
 make such a picture an _assemblage_. The assemblage of the first layer
-of Schliemann’s Troy was as different from that of the seventh layer as
+of Schliemann�s Troy was as different from that of the seventh layer as
 our 1900 mail-order catalogue is from the one of today.
 
 The archeologists who came after Schliemann began to notice other
@@ -433,23 +433,23 @@ idea that people will buy better mousetraps goes back into very
 ancient times. Today, if we make good automobiles or radios, we can
 sell some of them in Turkey or even in Timbuktu. This means that a
 few present-day types of American automobiles and radios form part
-of present-day “assemblages” in both Turkey and Timbuktu. The total
-present-day “assemblage” of Turkey is quite different from that of
+of present-day �assemblages� in both Turkey and Timbuktu. The total
+present-day �assemblage� of Turkey is quite different from that of
 Timbuktu or that of America, but they have at least some automobiles
 and some radios in common.
 
 Now these automobiles and radios will eventually wear out. Let us
 suppose we could go to some remote part of Turkey or to Timbuktu in a
-dream. We don’t know what the date is, in our dream, but we see all
+dream. We don�t know what the date is, in our dream, but we see all
 sorts of strange things and ways of living in both places. Nobody
 tells us what the date is. But suddenly we see a 1936 Ford; so we
 know that in our dream it has to be at least the year 1936, and only
 as many years after that as we could reasonably expect a Ford to keep
-in running order. The Ford would probably break down in twenty years’
-time, so the Turkish or Timbuktu “assemblage” we’re seeing in our dream
+in running order. The Ford would probably break down in twenty years�
+time, so the Turkish or Timbuktu �assemblage� we�re seeing in our dream
 has to date at about A.D. 1936-56.
 
-Archeologists not only “date” their ancient materials in this way; they
+Archeologists not only �date� their ancient materials in this way; they
 also see over what distances and between which peoples trading was
 done. It turns out that there was a good deal of trading in ancient
 times, probably all on a barter and exchange basis.
@@ -480,13 +480,13 @@ site. They find the remains of everything that would last through
 time, in several different layers. They know that the assemblage in
 the bottom layer was laid down earlier than the assemblage in the next
 layer above, and so on up to the topmost layer, which is the latest.
-They look at the results of other “digs” and find that some other
+They look at the results of other �digs� and find that some other
 archeologist 900 miles away has found ax-heads in his lowest layer,
 exactly like the ax-heads of their fifth layer. This means that their
 fifth layer must have been lived in at about the same time as was the
 first layer in the site 200 miles away. It also may mean that the
 people who lived in the two layers knew and traded with each other. Or
-it could mean that they didn’t necessarily know each other, but simply
+it could mean that they didn�t necessarily know each other, but simply
 that both traded with a third group at about the same time.
 
 You can see that the more we dig and find, the more clearly the main
@@ -501,8 +501,8 @@ those of domesticated animals, for instance, sheep or cattle, and
 therefore the people must have kept herds.
 
 More important than anything else--as our structure grows more
-complicated and our materials increase--is the fact that “a sort
-of history of human activity” does begin to appear. The habits or
+complicated and our materials increase--is the fact that �a sort
+of history of human activity� does begin to appear. The habits or
 traditions that men formed in the making of their tools and in the
 ways they did things, begin to stand out for us. How characteristic
 were these habits and traditions? What areas did they spread over?
@@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ method--chemical tests of the bones--that will enable them to discover
 what the blood-type may have been. One thing is sure. We have never
 found a group of skeletons so absolutely similar among themselves--so
 cast from a single mould, so to speak--that we could claim to have a
-“pure” race. I am sure we never shall.
+�pure� race. I am sure we never shall.
 
 We become particularly interested in any signs of change--when new
 materials and tool types and ways of doing things replace old ones. We
@@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ watch for signs of social change and progress in one way or another.
 
 We must do all this without one word of written history to aid us.
 Everything we are concerned with goes back to the time _before_ men
-learned to write. That is the prehistorian’s job--to find out what
+learned to write. That is the prehistorian�s job--to find out what
 happened before history began.
 
 
@@ -538,9 +538,9 @@ THE CHANGING WORLD in which Prehistoric Men Lived
 [Illustration]
 
 
-Mankind, we’ll say, is at least a half million years old. It is very
+Mankind, we�ll say, is at least a half million years old. It is very
 hard to understand how long a time half a million years really is.
-If we were to compare this whole length of time to one day, we’d get
+If we were to compare this whole length of time to one day, we�d get
 something like this: The present time is midnight, and Jesus was
 born just five minutes and thirty-six seconds ago. Earliest history
 began less than fifteen minutes ago. Everything before 11:45 was in
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ book; it would mainly affect the dates earlier than 25,000 years ago.
 
 CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENT
 
-The earth probably hasn’t changed much in the last 5,000 years (250
+The earth probably hasn�t changed much in the last 5,000 years (250
 generations). Men have built things on its surface and dug into it and
 drawn boundaries on maps of it, but the places where rivers, lakes,
 seas, and mountains now stand have changed very little.
@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ the glaciers covered most of Canada and the northern United States and
 reached down to southern England and France in Europe. Smaller ice
 sheets sat like caps on the Rockies, the Alps, and the Himalayas. The
 continental glaciation only happened north of the equator, however, so
-remember that “Ice Age” is only half true.
+remember that �Ice Age� is only half true.
 
 As you know, the amount of water on and about the earth does not vary.
 These large glaciers contained millions of tons of water frozen into
@@ -677,9 +677,9 @@ their dead.
 At about the time when the last great glacier was finally melting away,
 men in the Near East made the first basic change in human economy.
 They began to plant grain, and they learned to raise and herd certain
-animals. This meant that they could store food in granaries and “on the
-hoof” against the bad times of the year. This first really basic change
-in man’s way of living has been called the “food-producing revolution.”
+animals. This meant that they could store food in granaries and �on the
+hoof� against the bad times of the year. This first really basic change
+in man�s way of living has been called the �food-producing revolution.�
 By the time it happened, a modern kind of climate was beginning. Men
 had already grown to look as they do now. Know-how in ways of living
 had developed and progressed, slowly but surely, up to a point. It was
@@ -698,25 +698,25 @@ Prehistoric Men THEMSELVES
 
 DO WE KNOW WHERE MAN ORIGINATED?
 
-For a long time some scientists thought the “cradle of mankind” was in
+For a long time some scientists thought the �cradle of mankind� was in
 central Asia. Other scientists insisted it was in Africa, and still
-others said it might have been in Europe. Actually, we don’t know
-where it was. We don’t even know that there was only _one_ “cradle.”
-If we had to choose a “cradle” at this moment, we would probably say
+others said it might have been in Europe. Actually, we don�t know
+where it was. We don�t even know that there was only _one_ �cradle.�
+If we had to choose a �cradle� at this moment, we would probably say
 Africa. But the southern portions of Asia and Europe may also have been
 included in the general area. The scene of the early development of
-mankind was certainly the Old World. It is pretty certain men didn’t
+mankind was certainly the Old World. It is pretty certain men didn�t
 reach North or South America until almost the end of the Ice Age--had
 they done so earlier we would certainly have found some trace of them
 by now.
 
 The earliest tools we have yet found come from central and south
-Africa. By the dating system I’m using, these tools must be over
+Africa. By the dating system I�m using, these tools must be over
 500,000 years old. There are now reports that a few such early tools
 have been found--at the Sterkfontein cave in South Africa--along with
-the bones of small fossil men called “australopithecines.”
+the bones of small fossil men called �australopithecines.�
 
-Not all scientists would agree that the australopithecines were “men,”
+Not all scientists would agree that the australopithecines were �men,�
 or would agree that the tools were made by the australopithecines
 themselves. For these sticklers, the earliest bones of men come from
 the island of Java. The date would be about 450,000 years ago. So far,
@@ -727,12 +727,12 @@ Let me say it another way. How old are the earliest traces of men we
 now have? Over half a million years. This was a time when the first
 alpine glaciation was happening in the north. What has been found so
 far? The tools which the men of those times made, in different parts
-of Africa. It is now fairly generally agreed that the “men” who made
-the tools were the australopithecines. There is also a more “man-like”
+of Africa. It is now fairly generally agreed that the �men� who made
+the tools were the australopithecines. There is also a more �man-like�
 jawbone at Kanam in Kenya, but its find-spot has been questioned. The
 next earliest bones we have were found in Java, and they may be almost
 a hundred thousand years younger than the earliest African finds. We
-haven’t yet found the tools of these early Javanese. Our knowledge of
+haven�t yet found the tools of these early Javanese. Our knowledge of
 tool-using in Africa spreads quickly as time goes on: soon after the
 appearance of tools in the south we shall have them from as far north
 as Algeria.
@@ -758,30 +758,30 @@ prove it.
 MEN AND APES
 
 Many people used to get extremely upset at the ill-formed notion
-that “man descended from the apes.” Such words were much more likely
-to start fights or “monkey trials” than the correct notion that all
+that �man descended from the apes.� Such words were much more likely
+to start fights or �monkey trials� than the correct notion that all
 living animals, including man, ascended or evolved from a single-celled
 organism which lived in the primeval seas hundreds of millions of years
-ago. Men are mammals, of the order called Primates, and man’s living
-relatives are the great apes. Men didn’t “descend” from the apes or
+ago. Men are mammals, of the order called Primates, and man�s living
+relatives are the great apes. Men didn�t �descend� from the apes or
 apes from men, and mankind must have had much closer relatives who have
 since become extinct.
 
 Men stand erect. They also walk and run on their two feet. Apes are
 happiest in trees, swinging with their arms from branch to branch.
 Few branches of trees will hold the mighty gorilla, although he still
-manages to sleep in trees. Apes can’t stand really erect in our sense,
+manages to sleep in trees. Apes can�t stand really erect in our sense,
 and when they have to run on the ground, they use the knuckles of their
 hands as well as their feet.
 
 A key group of fossil bones here are the south African
 australopithecines. These are called the _Australopithecinae_ or
-“man-apes” or sometimes even “ape-men.” We do not _know_ that they were
+�man-apes� or sometimes even �ape-men.� We do not _know_ that they were
 directly ancestral to men but they can hardly have been so to apes.
-Presently I’ll describe them a bit more. The reason I mention them
+Presently I�ll describe them a bit more. The reason I mention them
 here is that while they had brains no larger than those of apes, their
 hipbones were enough like ours so that they must have stood erect.
-There is no good reason to think they couldn’t have walked as we do.
+There is no good reason to think they couldn�t have walked as we do.
 
 
 BRAINS, HANDS, AND TOOLS
@@ -801,12 +801,12 @@ Nobody knows which of these three is most important, or which came
 first. Most probably the growth of all three things was very much
 blended together. If you think about each of the things, you will see
 what I mean. Unless your hand is more flexible than a paw, and your
-thumb will work against (or oppose) your fingers, you can’t hold a tool
-very well. But you wouldn’t get the idea of using a tool unless you had
+thumb will work against (or oppose) your fingers, you can�t hold a tool
+very well. But you wouldn�t get the idea of using a tool unless you had
 enough brain to help you see cause and effect. And it is rather hard to
 see how your hand and brain would develop unless they had something to
-practice on--like using tools. In Professor Krogman’s words, “the hand
-must become the obedient servant of the eye and the brain.” It is the
+practice on--like using tools. In Professor Krogman�s words, �the hand
+must become the obedient servant of the eye and the brain.� It is the
 _co-ordination_ of these things that counts.
 
 Many other things must have been happening to the bodies of the
@@ -820,17 +820,17 @@ little by little, all together. Men became men very slowly.
 
 WHEN SHALL WE CALL MEN MEN?
 
-What do I mean when I say “men”? People who looked pretty much as we
+What do I mean when I say �men�? People who looked pretty much as we
 do, and who used different tools to do different things, are men to me.
-We’ll probably never know whether the earliest ones talked or not. They
+We�ll probably never know whether the earliest ones talked or not. They
 probably had vocal cords, so they could make sounds, but did they know
 how to make sounds work as symbols to carry meanings? But if the fossil
-bones look like our skeletons, and if we find tools which we’ll agree
-couldn’t have been made by nature or by animals, then I’d say we had
+bones look like our skeletons, and if we find tools which we�ll agree
+couldn�t have been made by nature or by animals, then I�d say we had
 traces of _men_.
 
 The australopithecine finds of the Transvaal and Bechuanaland, in
-south Africa, are bound to come into the discussion here. I’ve already
+south Africa, are bound to come into the discussion here. I�ve already
 told you that the australopithecines could have stood upright and
 walked on their two hind legs. They come from the very base of the
 Pleistocene or Ice Age, and a few coarse stone tools have been found
@@ -848,17 +848,17 @@ bones. The doubt as to whether the australopithecines used the tools
 themselves goes like this--just suppose some man-like creature (whose
 bones we have not yet found) made the tools and used them to kill
 and butcher australopithecines. Hence a few experts tend to let
-australopithecines still hang in limbo as “man-apes.”
+australopithecines still hang in limbo as �man-apes.�
 
 
 THE EARLIEST MEN WE KNOW
 
-I’ll postpone talking about the tools of early men until the next
+I�ll postpone talking about the tools of early men until the next
 chapter. The men whose bones were the earliest of the Java lot have
 been given the name _Meganthropus_. The bones are very fragmentary. We
 would not understand them very well unless we had the somewhat later
-Javanese lot--the more commonly known _Pithecanthropus_ or “Java
-man”--against which to refer them for study. One of the less well-known
+Javanese lot--the more commonly known _Pithecanthropus_ or �Java
+man�--against which to refer them for study. One of the less well-known
 and earliest fragments, a piece of lower jaw and some teeth, rather
 strongly resembles the lower jaws and teeth of the australopithecine
 type. Was _Meganthropus_ a sort of half-way point between the
@@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ finds of Java man were made in 1891-92 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, a Dutch
 doctor in the colonial service. Finds have continued to be made. There
 are now bones enough to account for four skulls. There are also four
 jaws and some odd teeth and thigh bones. Java man, generally speaking,
-was about five feet six inches tall, and didn’t hold his head very
+was about five feet six inches tall, and didn�t hold his head very
 erect. His skull was very thick and heavy and had room for little more
 than two-thirds as large a brain as we have. He had big teeth and a big
 jaw and enormous eyebrow ridges.
@@ -885,22 +885,22 @@ belonged to his near descendants.
 
 Remember that there are several varieties of men in the whole early
 Java lot, at least two of which are earlier than the _Pithecanthropus_,
-“Java man.” Some of the earlier ones seem to have gone in for
+�Java man.� Some of the earlier ones seem to have gone in for
 bigness, in tooth-size at least. _Meganthropus_ is one of these
 earlier varieties. As we said, he _may_ turn out to be a link to
 the australopithecines, who _may_ or _may not_ be ancestral to men.
 _Meganthropus_ is best understandable in terms of _Pithecanthropus_,
 who appeared later in the same general area. _Pithecanthropus_ is
 pretty well understandable from the bones he left us, and also because
-of his strong resemblance to the fully tool-using cave-dwelling “Peking
-man,” _Sinanthropus_, about whom we shall talk next. But you can see
+of his strong resemblance to the fully tool-using cave-dwelling �Peking
+man,� _Sinanthropus_, about whom we shall talk next. But you can see
 that the physical anthropologists and prehistoric archeologists still
 have a lot of work to do on the problem of earliest men.
 
 
 PEKING MEN AND SOME EARLY WESTERNERS
 
-The earliest known Chinese are called _Sinanthropus_, or “Peking man,”
+The earliest known Chinese are called _Sinanthropus_, or �Peking man,�
 because the finds were made near that city. In World War II, the United
 States Marine guard at our Embassy in Peking tried to help get the
 bones out of the city before the Japanese attack. Nobody knows where
@@ -913,9 +913,9 @@ casts of the bones.
 Peking man lived in a cave in a limestone hill, made tools, cracked
 animal bones to get the marrow out, and used fire. Incidentally, the
 bones of Peking man were found because Chinese dig for what they call
-“dragon bones” and “dragon teeth.” Uneducated Chinese buy these things
+�dragon bones� and �dragon teeth.� Uneducated Chinese buy these things
 in their drug stores and grind them into powder for medicine. The
-“dragon teeth” and “bones” are really fossils of ancient animals, and
+�dragon teeth� and �bones� are really fossils of ancient animals, and
 sometimes of men. The people who supply the drug stores have learned
 where to dig for strange bones and teeth. Paleontologists who get to
 China go to the drug stores to buy fossils. In a roundabout way, this
@@ -924,7 +924,7 @@ is how the fallen-in cave of Peking man at Choukoutien was discovered.
 Peking man was not quite as tall as Java man but he probably stood
 straighter. His skull looked very much like that of the Java skull
 except that it had room for a slightly larger brain. His face was less
-brutish than was Java man’s face, but this isn’t saying much.
+brutish than was Java man�s face, but this isn�t saying much.
 
 Peking man dates from early in the interglacial period following the
 second alpine glaciation. He probably lived close to 350,000 years
@@ -946,9 +946,9 @@ big ridges over the eyes. The more fragmentary skull from Swanscombe in
 England (p. 11) has been much more carefully studied. Only the top and
 back of that skull have been found. Since the skull rounds up nicely,
 it has been assumed that the face and forehead must have been quite
-“modern.” Careful comparison with Steinheim shows that this was not
+�modern.� Careful comparison with Steinheim shows that this was not
 necessarily so. This is important because it bears on the question of
-how early truly “modern” man appeared.
+how early truly �modern� man appeared.
 
 Recently two fragmentary jaws were found at Ternafine in Algeria,
 northwest Africa. They look like the jaws of Peking man. Tools were
@@ -971,22 +971,22 @@ modern Australian natives. During parts of the Ice Age there was a land
 bridge all the way from Java to Australia.
 
 
-TWO ENGLISHMEN WHO WEREN’T OLD
+TWO ENGLISHMEN WHO WEREN�T OLD
 
 The older textbooks contain descriptions of two English finds which
 were thought to be very old. These were called Piltdown (_Eoanthropus
 dawsoni_) and Galley Hill. The skulls were very modern in appearance.
 In 1948-49, British scientists began making chemical tests which proved
 that neither of these finds is very old. It is now known that both
-“Piltdown man” and the tools which were said to have been found with
+�Piltdown man� and the tools which were said to have been found with
 him were part of an elaborate fake!
 
 
-TYPICAL “CAVE MEN”
+TYPICAL �CAVE MEN�
 
 The next men we have to talk about are all members of a related group.
-These are the Neanderthal group. “Neanderthal man” himself was found in
-the Neander Valley, near Düsseldorf, Germany, in 1856. He was the first
+These are the Neanderthal group. �Neanderthal man� himself was found in
+the Neander Valley, near D�sseldorf, Germany, in 1856. He was the first
 human fossil to be recognized as such.
 
 [Illustration: PRINCIPAL KNOWN TYPES OF FOSSIL MEN
@@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ human fossil to be recognized as such.
   PITHECANTHROPUS]
 
 Some of us think that the neanderthaloids proper are only those people
-of western Europe who didn’t get out before the beginning of the last
+of western Europe who didn�t get out before the beginning of the last
 great glaciation, and who found themselves hemmed in by the glaciers
 in the Alps and northern Europe. Being hemmed in, they intermarried
 a bit too much and developed into a special type. Professor F. Clark
@@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ pre-neanderthaloids. There are traces of these pre-neanderthaloids
 pretty much throughout Europe during the third interglacial period--say
 100,000 years ago. The pre-neanderthaloids are represented by such
 finds as the ones at Ehringsdorf in Germany and Saccopastore in Italy.
-I won’t describe them for you, since they are simply less extreme than
+I won�t describe them for you, since they are simply less extreme than
 the neanderthaloids proper--about half way between Steinheim and the
 classic Neanderthal people.
 
@@ -1019,24 +1019,24 @@ get caught in the pocket of the southwest corner of Europe at the onset
 of the last great glaciation became the classic Neanderthalers. Out in
 the Near East, Howell thinks, it is possible to see traces of people
 evolving from the pre-neanderthaloid type toward that of fully modern
-man. Certainly, we don’t see such extreme cases of “neanderthaloidism”
+man. Certainly, we don�t see such extreme cases of �neanderthaloidism�
 outside of western Europe.
 
 There are at least a dozen good examples in the main or classic
 Neanderthal group in Europe. They date to just before and in the
 earlier part of the last great glaciation (85,000 to 40,000 years ago).
-Many of the finds have been made in caves. The “cave men” the movies
+Many of the finds have been made in caves. The �cave men� the movies
 and the cartoonists show you are probably meant to be Neanderthalers.
-I’m not at all sure they dragged their women by the hair; the women
+I�m not at all sure they dragged their women by the hair; the women
 were probably pretty tough, too!
 
 Neanderthal men had large bony heads, but plenty of room for brains.
 Some had brain cases even larger than the average for modern man. Their
 faces were heavy, and they had eyebrow ridges of bone, but the ridges
 were not as big as those of Java man. Their foreheads were very low,
-and they didn’t have much chin. They were about five feet three inches
-tall, but were heavy and barrel-chested. But the Neanderthalers didn’t
-slouch as much as they’ve been blamed for, either.
+and they didn�t have much chin. They were about five feet three inches
+tall, but were heavy and barrel-chested. But the Neanderthalers didn�t
+slouch as much as they�ve been blamed for, either.
 
 One important thing about the Neanderthal group is that there is a fair
 number of them to study. Just as important is the fact that we know
@@ -1059,10 +1059,10 @@ different-looking people.
 
 EARLY MODERN MEN
 
-How early is modern man (_Homo sapiens_), the “wise man”? Some people
+How early is modern man (_Homo sapiens_), the �wise man�? Some people
 have thought that he was very early, a few still think so. Piltdown
 and Galley Hill, which were quite modern in anatomical appearance and
-_supposedly_ very early in date, were the best “evidence” for very
+_supposedly_ very early in date, were the best �evidence� for very
 early modern men. Now that Piltdown has been liquidated and Galley Hill
 is known to be very late, what is left of the idea?
 
@@ -1073,13 +1073,13 @@ the Ternafine jaws, you might come to the conclusion that the crown of
 the Swanscombe head was that of a modern-like man.
 
 Two more skulls, again without faces, are available from a French
-cave site, Fontéchevade. They come from the time of the last great
+cave site, Font�chevade. They come from the time of the last great
 interglacial, as did the pre-neanderthaloids. The crowns of the
-Fontéchevade skulls also look quite modern. There is a bit of the
+Font�chevade skulls also look quite modern. There is a bit of the
 forehead preserved on one of these skulls and the brow-ridge is not
 heavy. Nevertheless, there is a suggestion that the bones belonged to
 an immature individual. In this case, his (or even more so, if _her_)
-brow-ridges would have been weak anyway. The case for the Fontéchevade
+brow-ridges would have been weak anyway. The case for the Font�chevade
 fossils, as modern type men, is little stronger than that for
 Swanscombe, although Professor Vallois believes it a good case.
 
@@ -1101,8 +1101,8 @@ of the onset of colder weather, when the last glaciation was beginning
 in the north--say 75,000 years ago.
 
 The 70 per cent modern group came from only one cave, Mugharet es-Skhul
-(“cave of the kids”). The other group, from several caves, had bones of
-men of the type we’ve been calling pre-neanderthaloid which we noted
+(�cave of the kids�). The other group, from several caves, had bones of
+men of the type we�ve been calling pre-neanderthaloid which we noted
 were widespread in Europe and beyond. The tools which came with each
 of these finds were generally similar, and McCown and Keith, and other
 scholars since their study, have tended to assume that both the Skhul
@@ -1131,26 +1131,26 @@ important fossil men of later Europe are shown in the chart on page
 DIFFERENCES IN THE EARLY MODERNS
 
 The main early European moderns have been divided into two groups, the
-Cro-Magnon group and the Combe Capelle-Brünn group. Cro-Magnon people
+Cro-Magnon group and the Combe Capelle-Br�nn group. Cro-Magnon people
 were tall and big-boned, with large, long, and rugged heads. They
 must have been built like many present-day Scandinavians. The Combe
-Capelle-Brünn people were shorter; they had narrow heads and faces, and
-big eyebrow-ridges. Of course we don’t find the skin or hair of these
-people. But there is little doubt they were Caucasoids (“Whites”).
+Capelle-Br�nn people were shorter; they had narrow heads and faces, and
+big eyebrow-ridges. Of course we don�t find the skin or hair of these
+people. But there is little doubt they were Caucasoids (�Whites�).
 
 Another important find came in the Italian Riviera, near Monte Carlo.
 Here, in a cave near Grimaldi, there was a grave containing a woman
 and a young boy, buried together. The two skeletons were first called
-“Negroid” because some features of their bones were thought to resemble
+�Negroid� because some features of their bones were thought to resemble
 certain features of modern African Negro bones. But more recently,
 Professor E. A. Hooton and other experts questioned the use of the word
-“Negroid” in describing the Grimaldi skeletons. It is true that nothing
+�Negroid� in describing the Grimaldi skeletons. It is true that nothing
 is known of the skin color, hair form, or any other fleshy feature of
-the Grimaldi people, so that the word “Negroid” in its usual meaning is
+the Grimaldi people, so that the word �Negroid� in its usual meaning is
 not proper here. It is also not clear whether the features of the bones
-claimed to be “Negroid” are really so at all.
+claimed to be �Negroid� are really so at all.
 
-From a place called Wadjak, in Java, we have “proto-Australoid” skulls
+From a place called Wadjak, in Java, we have �proto-Australoid� skulls
 which closely resemble those of modern Australian natives. Some of
 the skulls found in South Africa, especially the Boskop skull, look
 like those of modern Bushmen, but are much bigger. The ancestors of
@@ -1159,12 +1159,12 @@ Desert. True African Negroes were forest people who apparently expanded
 out of the west central African area only in the last several thousand
 years. Although dark in skin color, neither the Australians nor the
 Bushmen are Negroes; neither the Wadjak nor the Boskop skulls are
-“Negroid.”
+�Negroid.�
 
-As we’ve already mentioned, Professor Weidenreich believed that Peking
+As we�ve already mentioned, Professor Weidenreich believed that Peking
 man was already on the way to becoming a Mongoloid. Anyway, the
-Mongoloids would seem to have been present by the time of the “Upper
-Cave” at Choukoutien, the _Sinanthropus_ find-spot.
+Mongoloids would seem to have been present by the time of the �Upper
+Cave� at Choukoutien, the _Sinanthropus_ find-spot.
 
 
 WHAT THE DIFFERENCES MEAN
@@ -1175,14 +1175,14 @@ From area to area, men tended to look somewhat different, just as
 they do today. This is all quite natural. People _tended_ to mate
 near home; in the anthropological jargon, they made up geographically
 localized breeding populations. The simple continental division of
-“stocks”--black = Africa, yellow = Asia, white = Europe--is too simple
+�stocks�--black = Africa, yellow = Asia, white = Europe--is too simple
 a picture to fit the facts. People became accustomed to life in some
-particular area within a continent (we might call it a “natural area”).
+particular area within a continent (we might call it a �natural area�).
 As they went on living there, they evolved towards some particular
 physical variety. It would, of course, have been difficult to draw
 a clear boundary between two adjacent areas. There must always have
 been some mating across the boundaries in every case. One thing human
-beings don’t do, and never have done, is to mate for “purity.” It is
+beings don�t do, and never have done, is to mate for �purity.� It is
 self-righteous nonsense when we try to kid ourselves into thinking that
 they do.
 
@@ -1195,28 +1195,28 @@ and they must do the writing about races. I shall, however, give two
 modern definitions of race, and then make one comment.
 
   Dr. William G. Boyd, professor of Immunochemistry, School of
-    Medicine, Boston University: “We may define a human race as a
+    Medicine, Boston University: �We may define a human race as a
     population which differs significantly from other human populations
     in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it
-    possesses.”
+    possesses.�
 
   Professor Sherwood L. Washburn, professor of Physical Anthropology,
-    Department of Anthropology, the University of California: “A ‘race’
+    Department of Anthropology, the University of California: �A �race�
     is a group of genetically similar populations, and races intergrade
-    because there are always intermediate populations.”
+    because there are always intermediate populations.�
 
 My comment is that the ideas involved here are all biological: they
 concern groups, _not_ individuals. Boyd and Washburn may differ a bit
-on what they want to consider a “population,” but a population is a
+on what they want to consider a �population,� but a population is a
 group nevertheless, and genetics is biology to the hilt. Now a lot of
 people still think of race in terms of how people dress or fix their
 food or of other habits or customs they have. The next step is to talk
-about racial “purity.” None of this has anything whatever to do with
+about racial �purity.� None of this has anything whatever to do with
 race proper, which is a matter of the biology of groups.
 
-Incidentally, I’m told that if man very carefully _controls_
+Incidentally, I�m told that if man very carefully _controls_
 the breeding of certain animals over generations--dogs, cattle,
-chickens--he might achieve a “pure” race of animals. But he doesn’t do
+chickens--he might achieve a �pure� race of animals. But he doesn�t do
 it. Some unfortunate genetic trait soon turns up, so this has just as
 carefully to be bred out again, and so on.
 
@@ -1240,20 +1240,20 @@ date to the second great interglacial period, about 350,000 years ago.
 
 Piltdown and Galley Hill are out, and with them, much of the starch
 in the old idea that there were two distinct lines of development
-in human evolution: (1) a line of “paleoanthropic” development from
+in human evolution: (1) a line of �paleoanthropic� development from
 Heidelberg to the Neanderthalers where it became extinct, and (2) a
-very early “modern” line, through Piltdown, Galley Hill, Swanscombe, to
+very early �modern� line, through Piltdown, Galley Hill, Swanscombe, to
 us. Swanscombe, Steinheim, and Ternafine are just as easily cases of
 very early pre-neanderthaloids.
 
 The pre-neanderthaloids were very widespread during the third
 interglacial: Ehringsdorf, Saccopastore, some of the Mount Carmel
-people, and probably Fontéchevade are cases in point. A variety of
+people, and probably Font�chevade are cases in point. A variety of
 their descendants can be seen, from Java (Solo), Africa (Rhodesian
 man), and about the Mediterranean and in western Europe. As the acute
 cold of the last glaciation set in, the western Europeans found
 themselves surrounded by water, ice, or bitter cold tundra. To vastly
-over-simplify it, they “bred in” and became classic neanderthaloids.
+over-simplify it, they �bred in� and became classic neanderthaloids.
 But on Mount Carmel, the Skhul cave-find with its 70 per cent modern
 features shows what could happen elsewhere at the same time.
 
@@ -1263,12 +1263,12 @@ modern skeletons of men. The modern skeletons differ from place to
 place, just as different groups of men living in different places still
 look different.
 
-What became of the Neanderthalers? Nobody can tell me for sure. I’ve a
-hunch they were simply “bred out” again when the cold weather was over.
+What became of the Neanderthalers? Nobody can tell me for sure. I�ve a
+hunch they were simply �bred out� again when the cold weather was over.
 Many Americans, as the years go by, are no longer ashamed to claim they
-have “Indian blood in their veins.” Give us a few more generations
+have �Indian blood in their veins.� Give us a few more generations
 and there will not be very many other Americans left to whom we can
-brag about it. It certainly isn’t inconceivable to me to imagine a
+brag about it. It certainly isn�t inconceivable to me to imagine a
 little Cro-Magnon boy bragging to his friends about his tough, strong,
 Neanderthaler great-great-great-great-grandfather!
 
@@ -1281,15 +1281,15 @@ Cultural BEGINNINGS
 
 
 Men, unlike the lower animals, are made up of much more than flesh and
-blood and bones; for men have “culture.”
+blood and bones; for men have �culture.�
 
 
 WHAT IS CULTURE?
 
-“Culture” is a word with many meanings. The doctors speak of making a
-“culture” of a certain kind of bacteria, and ants are said to have a
-“culture.” Then there is the Emily Post kind of “culture”--you say a
-person is “cultured,” or that he isn’t, depending on such things as
+�Culture� is a word with many meanings. The doctors speak of making a
+�culture� of a certain kind of bacteria, and ants are said to have a
+�culture.� Then there is the Emily Post kind of �culture�--you say a
+person is �cultured,� or that he isn�t, depending on such things as
 whether or not he eats peas with his knife.
 
 The anthropologists use the word too, and argue heatedly over its finer
@@ -1300,7 +1300,7 @@ men from another. In this sense, a CULTURE means the way the members
 of a group of people think and believe and live, the tools they make,
 and the way they do things. Professor Robert Redfield says a culture
 is an organized or formalized body of conventional understandings.
-“Conventional understandings” means the whole set of rules, beliefs,
+�Conventional understandings� means the whole set of rules, beliefs,
 and standards which a group of people lives by. These understandings
 show themselves in art, and in the other things a people may make and
 do. The understandings continue to last, through tradition, from one
@@ -1325,12 +1325,12 @@ Egyptians. I mean their beliefs as to why grain grew, as well as their
 ability to make tools with which to reap the grain. I mean their
 beliefs about life after death. What I am thinking about as culture is
 a thing which lasted in time. If any one Egyptian, even the Pharaoh,
-died, it didn’t affect the Egyptian culture of that particular moment.
+died, it didn�t affect the Egyptian culture of that particular moment.
 
 
 PREHISTORIC CULTURES
 
-For that long period of man’s history that is all prehistory, we have
+For that long period of man�s history that is all prehistory, we have
 no written descriptions of cultures. We find only the tools men made,
 the places where they lived, the graves in which they buried their
 dead. Fortunately for us, these tools and living places and graves all
@@ -1345,15 +1345,15 @@ of the classic European Neanderthal group of men, we have found few
 cave-dwelling places of very early prehistoric men. First, there is the
 fallen-in cave where Peking man was found, near Peking. Then there are
 two or three other _early_, but not _very early_, possibilities. The
-finds at the base of the French cave of Fontéchevade, those in one of
+finds at the base of the French cave of Font�chevade, those in one of
 the Makapan caves in South Africa, and several open sites such as Dr.
-L. S. B. Leakey’s Olorgesailie in Kenya doubtless all lie earlier than
+L. S. B. Leakey�s Olorgesailie in Kenya doubtless all lie earlier than
 the time of the main European Neanderthal group, but none are so early
 as the Peking finds.
 
 You can see that we know very little about the home life of earlier
 prehistoric men. We find different kinds of early stone tools, but we
-can’t even be really sure which tools may have been used together.
+can�t even be really sure which tools may have been used together.
 
 
 WHY LITTLE HAS LASTED FROM EARLY TIMES
@@ -1380,11 +1380,11 @@ there first! The front of this enormous sheet of ice moved down over
 the country, crushing and breaking and plowing up everything, like a
 gigantic bulldozer. You can see what happened to our camp site.
 
-Everything the glacier couldn’t break, it pushed along in front of it
+Everything the glacier couldn�t break, it pushed along in front of it
 or plowed beneath it. Rocks were ground to gravel, and soil was caught
 into the ice, which afterwards melted and ran off as muddy water. Hard
-tools of flint sometimes remained whole. Human bones weren’t so hard;
-it’s a wonder _any_ of them lasted. Gushing streams of melt water
+tools of flint sometimes remained whole. Human bones weren�t so hard;
+it�s a wonder _any_ of them lasted. Gushing streams of melt water
 flushed out the debris from underneath the glacier, and water flowed
 off the surface and through great crevasses. The hard materials these
 waters carried were even more rolled and ground up. Finally, such
@@ -1407,26 +1407,26 @@ all up, and so we cannot say which particular sets of tools belonged
 together in the first place.
 
 
-“EOLITHS”
+�EOLITHS�
 
 But what sort of tools do we find earliest? For almost a century,
 people have been picking up odd bits of flint and other stone in the
 oldest Ice Age gravels in England and France. It is now thought these
-odd bits of stone weren’t actually worked by prehistoric men. The
-stones were given a name, _eoliths_, or “dawn stones.” You can see them
+odd bits of stone weren�t actually worked by prehistoric men. The
+stones were given a name, _eoliths_, or �dawn stones.� You can see them
 in many museums; but you can be pretty sure that very few of them were
 actually fashioned by men.
 
-It is impossible to pick out “eoliths” that seem to be made in any
-one _tradition_. By “tradition” I mean a set of habits for making one
-kind of tool for some particular job. No two “eoliths” look very much
+It is impossible to pick out �eoliths� that seem to be made in any
+one _tradition_. By �tradition� I mean a set of habits for making one
+kind of tool for some particular job. No two �eoliths� look very much
 alike: tools made as part of some one tradition all look much alike.
-Now it’s easy to suppose that the very earliest prehistoric men picked
-up and used almost any sort of stone. This wouldn’t be surprising; you
-and I do it when we go camping. In other words, some of these “eoliths”
+Now it�s easy to suppose that the very earliest prehistoric men picked
+up and used almost any sort of stone. This wouldn�t be surprising; you
+and I do it when we go camping. In other words, some of these �eoliths�
 may actually have been used by prehistoric men. They must have used
 anything that might be handy when they needed it. We could have figured
-that out without the “eoliths.”
+that out without the �eoliths.�
 
 
 THE ROAD TO STANDARDIZATION
@@ -1434,7 +1434,7 @@ THE ROAD TO STANDARDIZATION
 Reasoning from what we know or can easily imagine, there should have
 been three major steps in the prehistory of tool-making. The first step
 would have been simple _utilization_ of what was at hand. This is the
-step into which the “eoliths” would fall. The second step would have
+step into which the �eoliths� would fall. The second step would have
 been _fashioning_--the haphazard preparation of a tool when there was a
 need for it. Probably many of the earlier pebble tools, which I shall
 describe next, fall into this group. The third step would have been
@@ -1447,7 +1447,7 @@ tradition appears.
 
 PEBBLE TOOLS
 
-At the beginning of the last chapter, you’ll remember that I said there
+At the beginning of the last chapter, you�ll remember that I said there
 were tools from very early geological beds. The earliest bones of men
 have not yet been found in such early beds although the Sterkfontein
 australopithecine cave approaches this early date. The earliest tools
@@ -1467,7 +1467,7 @@ Old World besides Africa; in fact, some prehistorians already claim
 to have identified a few. Since the forms and the distinct ways of
 making the earlier pebble tools had not yet sufficiently jelled into
 a set tradition, they are difficult for us to recognize. It is not
-so difficult, however, if there are great numbers of “possibles”
+so difficult, however, if there are great numbers of �possibles�
 available. A little later in time the tradition becomes more clearly
 set, and pebble tools are easier to recognize. So far, really large
 collections of pebble tools have only been found and examined in Africa.
@@ -1475,9 +1475,9 @@ collections of pebble tools have only been found and examined in Africa.
 
 CORE-BIFACE TOOLS
 
-The next tradition we’ll look at is the _core_ or biface one. The tools
+The next tradition we�ll look at is the _core_ or biface one. The tools
 are large pear-shaped pieces of stone trimmed flat on the two opposite
-sides or “faces.” Hence “biface” has been used to describe these tools.
+sides or �faces.� Hence �biface� has been used to describe these tools.
 The front view is like that of a pear with a rather pointed top, and
 the back view looks almost exactly the same. Look at them side on, and
 you can see that the front and back faces are the same and have been
@@ -1488,7 +1488,7 @@ illustration.
 [Illustration: ABBEVILLIAN BIFACE]
 
 We have very little idea of the way in which these core-bifaces were
-used. They have been called “hand axes,” but this probably gives the
+used. They have been called �hand axes,� but this probably gives the
 wrong idea, for an ax, to us, is not a pointed tool. All of these early
 tools must have been used for a number of jobs--chopping, scraping,
 cutting, hitting, picking, and prying. Since the core-bifaces tend to
@@ -1505,7 +1505,7 @@ a big block of stone. You had to break off the flake in such a way that
 it was broad and thin, and also had a good sharp cutting edge. Once you
 really got on to the trick of doing it, this was probably a simpler way
 to make a good cutting tool than preparing a biface. You have to know
-how, though; I’ve tried it and have mashed my fingers more than once.
+how, though; I�ve tried it and have mashed my fingers more than once.
 
 The flake tools look as if they were meant mainly for chopping,
 scraping, and cutting jobs. When one made a flake tool, the idea seems
@@ -1535,9 +1535,9 @@ tradition. It probably has its earliest roots in the pebble tool
 tradition of African type. There are several kinds of tools in this
 tradition, but all differ from the western core-bifaces and flakes.
 There are broad, heavy scrapers or cleavers, and tools with an
-adze-like cutting edge. These last-named tools are called “hand adzes,”
-just as the core-bifaces of the west have often been called “hand
-axes.” The section of an adze cutting edge is ? shaped; the section of
+adze-like cutting edge. These last-named tools are called �hand adzes,�
+just as the core-bifaces of the west have often been called �hand
+axes.� The section of an adze cutting edge is ? shaped; the section of
 an ax is < shaped.
 
 [Illustration: ANYATHIAN ADZE-LIKE TOOL]
@@ -1581,17 +1581,17 @@ stratification.[3]
     Soan (India)
 
   Flake:
-    “Typical Mousterian”
+    �Typical Mousterian�
     Levalloiso-Mousterian
     Levalloisian
     Tayacian
     Clactonian (localized in England)
 
   Core-biface:
-    Some blended elements in “Mousterian”
+    Some blended elements in �Mousterian�
     Micoquian (= Acheulean 6 and 7)
     Acheulean
-    Abbevillian (once called “Chellean”)
+    Abbevillian (once called �Chellean�)
 
   Pebble tool:
     Oldowan
@@ -1608,8 +1608,8 @@ out of glacial gravels the easiest thing to do first is to isolate
 individual types of tools into groups. First you put a bushel-basketful
 of tools on a table and begin matching up types. Then you give names to
 the groups of each type. The groups and the types are really matters of
-the archeologists’ choice; in real life, they were probably less exact
-than the archeologists’ lists of them. We now know pretty well in which
+the archeologists� choice; in real life, they were probably less exact
+than the archeologists� lists of them. We now know pretty well in which
 of the early traditions the various early groups belong.
 
 
@@ -1635,9 +1635,9 @@ production must have been passed on from one generation to another.
 
 I could even guess that the notions of the ideal type of one or the
 other of these tools stood out in the minds of men of those times
-somewhat like a symbol of “perfect tool for good job.” If this were
-so--remember it’s only a wild guess of mine--then men were already
-symbol users. Now let’s go on a further step to the fact that the words
+somewhat like a symbol of �perfect tool for good job.� If this were
+so--remember it�s only a wild guess of mine--then men were already
+symbol users. Now let�s go on a further step to the fact that the words
 men speak are simply sounds, each different sound being a symbol for a
 different meaning. If standardized tool-making suggests symbol-making,
 is it also possible that crude word-symbols were also being made? I
@@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ of our second step is more suggestive, although we may not yet feel
 sure that many of the earlier pebble tools were man-made products. But
 with the step to standardization and the appearance of the traditions,
 I believe we must surely be dealing with the traces of culture-bearing
-_men_. The “conventional understandings” which Professor Redfield’s
+_men_. The �conventional understandings� which Professor Redfield�s
 definition of culture suggests are now evidenced for us in the
 persistent habits for the preparation of stone tools. Were we able to
 see the other things these prehistoric men must have made--in materials
@@ -1666,19 +1666,19 @@ In the last chapter, I told you that many of the older archeologists
 and human paleontologists used to think that modern man was very old.
 The supposed ages of Piltdown and Galley Hill were given as evidence
 of the great age of anatomically modern man, and some interpretations
-of the Swanscombe and Fontéchevade fossils were taken to support
+of the Swanscombe and Font�chevade fossils were taken to support
 this view. The conclusion was that there were two parallel lines or
-“phyla” of men already present well back in the Pleistocene. The
-first of these, the more primitive or “paleoanthropic” line, was
+�phyla� of men already present well back in the Pleistocene. The
+first of these, the more primitive or �paleoanthropic� line, was
 said to include Heidelberg, the proto-neanderthaloids and classic
-Neanderthal. The more anatomically modern or “neanthropic” line was
+Neanderthal. The more anatomically modern or �neanthropic� line was
 thought to consist of Piltdown and the others mentioned above. The
 Neanderthaler or paleoanthropic line was thought to have become extinct
 after the first phase of the last great glaciation. Of course, the
 modern or neanthropic line was believed to have persisted into the
-present, as the basis for the world’s population today. But with
+present, as the basis for the world�s population today. But with
 Piltdown liquidated, Galley Hill known to be very late, and Swanscombe
-and Fontéchevade otherwise interpreted, there is little left of the
+and Font�chevade otherwise interpreted, there is little left of the
 so-called parallel phyla theory.
 
 While the theory was in vogue, however, and as long as the European
@@ -1695,9 +1695,9 @@ where they had actually been dropped by the men who made and used
 them. The tools came, rather, from the secondary hodge-podge of the
 glacial gravels. I tried to give you a picture of the bulldozing action
 of glaciers (p. 40) and of the erosion and weathering that were
-side-effects of a glacially conditioned climate on the earth’s surface.
+side-effects of a glacially conditioned climate on the earth�s surface.
 As we said above, if one simply plucks tools out of the redeposited
-gravels, his natural tendency is to “type” the tools by groups, and to
+gravels, his natural tendency is to �type� the tools by groups, and to
 think that the groups stand for something _on their own_.
 
 In 1906, M. Victor Commont actually made a rare find of what seems
@@ -1705,15 +1705,15 @@ to have been a kind of workshop site, on a terrace above the Somme
 river in France. Here, Commont realized, flake tools appeared clearly
 in direct association with core-biface tools. Few prehistorians paid
 attention to Commont or his site, however. It was easier to believe
-that flake tools represented a distinct “culture” and that this
-“culture” was that of the Neanderthaler or paleoanthropic line, and
-that the core-bifaces stood for another “culture” which was that of the
+that flake tools represented a distinct �culture� and that this
+�culture� was that of the Neanderthaler or paleoanthropic line, and
+that the core-bifaces stood for another �culture� which was that of the
 supposed early modern or neanthropic line. Of course, I am obviously
 skipping many details here. Some later sites with Neanderthal fossils
 do seem to have only flake tools, but other such sites have both types
 of tools. The flake tools which appeared _with_ the core-bifaces
 in the Swanscombe gravels were never made much of, although it
-was embarrassing for the parallel phyla people that Fontéchevade
+was embarrassing for the parallel phyla people that Font�chevade
 ran heavily to flake tools. All in all, the parallel phyla theory
 flourished because it seemed so neat and easy to understand.
 
@@ -1722,20 +1722,20 @@ TRADITIONS ARE TOOL-MAKING HABITS, NOT CULTURES
 
 In case you think I simply enjoy beating a dead horse, look in any
 standard book on prehistory written twenty (or even ten) years ago, or
-in most encyclopedias. You’ll find that each of the individual tool
-types, of the West, at least, was supposed to represent a “culture.”
-The “cultures” were believed to correspond to parallel lines of human
+in most encyclopedias. You�ll find that each of the individual tool
+types, of the West, at least, was supposed to represent a �culture.�
+The �cultures� were believed to correspond to parallel lines of human
 evolution.
 
 In 1937, Mr. Harper Kelley strongly re-emphasized the importance
-of Commont’s workshop site and the presence of flake tools with
-core-bifaces. Next followed Dr. Movius’ clear delineation of the
+of Commont�s workshop site and the presence of flake tools with
+core-bifaces. Next followed Dr. Movius� clear delineation of the
 chopper-chopping tool tradition of the Far East. This spoiled the nice
 symmetry of the flake-tool = paleoanthropic, core-biface = neanthropic
 equations. Then came increasing understanding of the importance of
 the pebble tools in Africa, and the location of several more workshop
 sites there, especially at Olorgesailie in Kenya. Finally came the
-liquidation of Piltdown and the deflation of Galley Hill’s date. So it
+liquidation of Piltdown and the deflation of Galley Hill�s date. So it
 is at last possible to picture an individual prehistoric man making a
 flake tool to do one job and a core-biface tool to do another. Commont
 showed us this picture in 1906, but few believed him.
@@ -1751,7 +1751,7 @@ that of the cave on Mount Carmel in Palestine, where the blended
 pre-neanderthaloid, 70 per cent modern-type skulls were found. Here, in
 the same level with the skulls, were 9,784 flint tools. Of these, only
 three--doubtless strays--were core-bifaces; all the rest were flake
-tools or flake chips. We noted above how the Fontéchevade cave ran to
+tools or flake chips. We noted above how the Font�chevade cave ran to
 flake tools. The only conclusion I would draw from this is that times
 and circumstances did exist in which prehistoric men needed only flake
 tools. So they only made flake tools for those particular times and
@@ -1773,13 +1773,13 @@ piece of bone. From the gravels which yield the Clactonian flakes of
 England comes the fire-hardened point of a wooden spear. There are
 also the chance finds of the fossil human bones themselves, of which
 we spoke in the last chapter. Aside from the cave of Peking man, none
-of the earliest tools have been found in caves. Open air or “workshop”
+of the earliest tools have been found in caves. Open air or �workshop�
 sites which do not seem to have been disturbed later by some geological
 agency are very rare.
 
 The chart on page 65 shows graphically what the situation in
 west-central Europe seems to have been. It is not yet certain whether
-there were pebble tools there or not. The Fontéchevade cave comes
+there were pebble tools there or not. The Font�chevade cave comes
 into the picture about 100,000 years ago or more. But for the earlier
 hundreds of thousands of years--below the red-dotted line on the
 chart--the tools we find come almost entirely from the haphazard
@@ -1790,13 +1790,13 @@ kinds of all-purpose tools. Almost any one of them could be used for
 hacking, chopping, cutting, and scraping; so the men who used them must
 have been living in a rough and ready sort of way. They found or hunted
 their food wherever they could. In the anthropological jargon, they
-were “food-gatherers,” pure and simple.
+were �food-gatherers,� pure and simple.
 
 Because of the mixture in the gravels and in the materials they
-carried, we can’t be sure which animals these men hunted. Bones of
+carried, we can�t be sure which animals these men hunted. Bones of
 the larger animals turn up in the gravels, but they could just as
 well belong to the animals who hunted the men, rather than the other
-way about. We don’t know. This is why camp sites like Commont’s and
+way about. We don�t know. This is why camp sites like Commont�s and
 Olorgesailie in Kenya are so important when we do find them. The animal
 bones at Olorgesailie belonged to various mammals of extremely large
 size. Probably they were taken in pit-traps, but there are a number of
@@ -1809,18 +1809,18 @@ animal.
 Professor F. Clark Howell recently returned from excavating another
 important open air site at Isimila in Tanganyika. The site yielded
 the bones of many fossil animals and also thousands of core-bifaces,
-flakes, and choppers. But Howell’s reconstruction of the food-getting
-habits of the Isimila people certainly suggests that the word “hunting”
-is too dignified for what they did; “scavenging” would be much nearer
+flakes, and choppers. But Howell�s reconstruction of the food-getting
+habits of the Isimila people certainly suggests that the word �hunting�
+is too dignified for what they did; �scavenging� would be much nearer
 the mark.
 
 During a great part of this time the climate was warm and pleasant. The
 second interglacial period (the time between the second and third great
 alpine glaciations) lasted a long time, and during much of this time
-the climate may have been even better than ours is now. We don’t know
+the climate may have been even better than ours is now. We don�t know
 that earlier prehistoric men in Europe or Africa lived in caves. They
 may not have needed to; much of the weather may have been so nice that
-they lived in the open. Perhaps they didn’t wear clothes, either.
+they lived in the open. Perhaps they didn�t wear clothes, either.
 
 
 WHAT THE PEKING CAVE-FINDS TELL US
@@ -1832,7 +1832,7 @@ were bones of dangerous animals, members of the wolf, bear, and cat
 families. Some of the cat bones belonged to beasts larger than tigers.
 There were also bones of other wild animals: buffalo, camel, deer,
 elephants, horses, sheep, and even ostriches. Seventy per cent of the
-animals Peking man killed were fallow deer. It’s much too cold and dry
+animals Peking man killed were fallow deer. It�s much too cold and dry
 in north China for all these animals to live there today. So this list
 helps us know that the weather was reasonably warm, and that there was
 enough rain to grow grass for the grazing animals. The list also helps
@@ -1840,7 +1840,7 @@ the paleontologists to date the find.
 
 Peking man also seems to have eaten plant food, for there are hackberry
 seeds in the debris of the cave. His tools were made of sandstone and
-quartz and sometimes of a rather bad flint. As we’ve already seen, they
+quartz and sometimes of a rather bad flint. As we�ve already seen, they
 belong in the chopper-tool tradition. It seems fairly clear that some
 of the edges were chipped by right-handed people. There are also many
 split pieces of heavy bone. Peking man probably split them so he could
@@ -1850,10 +1850,10 @@ Many of these split bones were the bones of Peking men. Each one of the
 skulls had already had the base broken out of it. In no case were any
 of the bones resting together in their natural relation to one another.
 There is nothing like a burial; all of the bones are scattered. Now
-it’s true that animals could have scattered bodies that were not cared
+it�s true that animals could have scattered bodies that were not cared
 for or buried. But splitting bones lengthwise and carefully removing
 the base of a skull call for both the tools and the people to use them.
-It’s pretty clear who the people were. Peking man was a cannibal.
+It�s pretty clear who the people were. Peking man was a cannibal.
 
        *       *       *       *       *
 
@@ -1862,8 +1862,8 @@ prehistoric men. In those days life was rough. You evidently had to
 watch out not only for dangerous animals but also for your fellow men.
 You ate whatever you could catch or find growing. But you had sense
 enough to build fires, and you had already formed certain habits for
-making the kinds of stone tools you needed. That’s about all we know.
-But I think we’ll have to admit that cultural beginnings had been made,
+making the kinds of stone tools you needed. That�s about all we know.
+But I think we�ll have to admit that cultural beginnings had been made,
 and that these early people were really _men_.
 
 
@@ -1876,16 +1876,16 @@ MORE EVIDENCE of Culture
 
 While the dating is not yet sure, the material that we get from caves
 in Europe must go back to about 100,000 years ago; the time of the
-classic Neanderthal group followed soon afterwards. We don’t know why
+classic Neanderthal group followed soon afterwards. We don�t know why
 there is no earlier material in the caves; apparently they were not
 used before the last interglacial phase (the period just before the
 last great glaciation). We know that men of the classic Neanderthal
 group were living in caves from about 75,000 to 45,000 years ago.
 New radioactive carbon dates even suggest that some of the traces of
-culture we’ll describe in this chapter may have lasted to about 35,000
+culture we�ll describe in this chapter may have lasted to about 35,000
 years ago. Probably some of the pre-neanderthaloid types of men had
 also lived in caves. But we have so far found their bones in caves only
-in Palestine and at Fontéchevade.
+in Palestine and at Font�chevade.
 
 
 THE CAVE LAYERS
@@ -1893,7 +1893,7 @@ THE CAVE LAYERS
 In parts of France, some peasants still live in caves. In prehistoric
 time, many generations of people lived in them. As a result, many
 caves have deep layers of debris. The first people moved in and lived
-on the rock floor. They threw on the floor whatever they didn’t want,
+on the rock floor. They threw on the floor whatever they didn�t want,
 and they tracked in mud; nobody bothered to clean house in those days.
 Their debris--junk and mud and garbage and what not--became packed
 into a layer. As time went on, and generations passed, the layer grew
@@ -1910,20 +1910,20 @@ earliest to latest. This is the _stratification_ we talked about (p.
 
 [Illustration: SECTION OF SHELTER ON LOWER TERRACE, LE MOUSTIER]
 
-While we may find a mix-up in caves, it’s not nearly as bad as the
+While we may find a mix-up in caves, it�s not nearly as bad as the
 mixing up that was done by glaciers. The animal bones and shells, the
 fireplaces, the bones of men, and the tools the men made all belong
-together, if they come from one layer. That’s the reason why the cave
+together, if they come from one layer. That�s the reason why the cave
 of Peking man is so important. It is also the reason why the caves in
 Europe and the Near East are so important. We can get an idea of which
 things belong together and which lot came earliest and which latest.
 
 In most cases, prehistoric men lived only in the mouths of caves.
-They didn’t like the dark inner chambers as places to live in. They
+They didn�t like the dark inner chambers as places to live in. They
 preferred rock-shelters, at the bases of overhanging cliffs, if there
 was enough overhang to give shelter. When the weather was good, they no
-doubt lived in the open air as well. I’ll go on using the term “cave”
-since it’s more familiar, but remember that I really mean rock-shelter,
+doubt lived in the open air as well. I�ll go on using the term �cave�
+since it�s more familiar, but remember that I really mean rock-shelter,
 as a place in which people actually lived.
 
 The most important European cave sites are in Spain, France, and
@@ -1933,29 +1933,29 @@ found when the out-of-the-way parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia are
 studied.
 
 
-AN “INDUSTRY” DEFINED
+AN �INDUSTRY� DEFINED
 
 We have already seen that the earliest European cave materials are
-those from the cave of Fontéchevade. Movius feels certain that the
+those from the cave of Font�chevade. Movius feels certain that the
 lowest materials here date back well into the third interglacial stage,
-that which lay between the Riss (next to the last) and the Würm I
+that which lay between the Riss (next to the last) and the W�rm I
 (first stage of the last) alpine glaciations. This material consists
 of an _industry_ of stone tools, apparently all made in the flake
-tradition. This is the first time we have used the word “industry.”
+tradition. This is the first time we have used the word �industry.�
 It is useful to call all of the different tools found together in one
 layer and made of _one kind of material_ an industry; that is, the
 tools must be found together as men left them. Tools taken from the
 glacial gravels (or from windswept desert surfaces or river gravels
-or any geological deposit) are not “together” in this sense. We might
-say the latter have only “geological,” not “archeological” context.
+or any geological deposit) are not �together� in this sense. We might
+say the latter have only �geological,� not �archeological� context.
 Archeological context means finding things just as men left them. We
-can tell what tools go together in an “industrial” sense only if we
+can tell what tools go together in an �industrial� sense only if we
 have archeological context.
 
-Up to now, the only things we could have called “industries” were the
+Up to now, the only things we could have called �industries� were the
 worked stone industry and perhaps the worked (?) bone industry of the
 Peking cave. We could add some of the very clear cases of open air
-sites, like Olorgesailie. We couldn’t use the term for the stone tools
+sites, like Olorgesailie. We couldn�t use the term for the stone tools
 from the glacial gravels, because we do not know which tools belonged
 together. But when the cave materials begin to appear in Europe, we can
 begin to speak of industries. Most of the European caves of this time
@@ -1964,16 +1964,16 @@ contain industries of flint tools alone.
 
 THE EARLIEST EUROPEAN CAVE LAYERS
 
-We’ve just mentioned the industry from what is said to be the oldest
+We�ve just mentioned the industry from what is said to be the oldest
 inhabited cave in Europe; that is, the industry from the deepest layer
-of the site at Fontéchevade. Apparently it doesn’t amount to much. The
+of the site at Font�chevade. Apparently it doesn�t amount to much. The
 tools are made of stone, in the flake tradition, and are very poorly
 worked. This industry is called _Tayacian_. Its type tool seems to be
 a smallish flake tool, but there are also larger flakes which seem to
 have been fashioned for hacking. In fact, the type tool seems to be
 simply a smaller edition of the Clactonian tool (pictured on p. 45).
 
-None of the Fontéchevade tools are really good. There are scrapers,
+None of the Font�chevade tools are really good. There are scrapers,
 and more or less pointed tools, and tools that may have been used
 for hacking and chopping. Many of the tools from the earlier glacial
 gravels are better made than those of this first industry we see in
@@ -2005,7 +2005,7 @@ core-biface and the flake traditions. The core-biface tools usually
 make up less than half of all the tools in the industry. However,
 the name of the biface type of tool is generally given to the whole
 industry. It is called the _Acheulean_, actually a late form of it, as
-“Acheulean” is also used for earlier core-biface tools taken from the
+�Acheulean� is also used for earlier core-biface tools taken from the
 glacial gravels. In western Europe, the name used is _Upper Acheulean_
 or _Micoquian_. The same terms have been borrowed to name layers E and
 F in the Tabun cave, on Mount Carmel in Palestine.
@@ -2029,7 +2029,7 @@ those used for at least one of the flake industries we shall mention
 presently.
 
 There is very little else in these early cave layers. We do not have
-a proper “industry” of bone tools. There are traces of fire, and of
+a proper �industry� of bone tools. There are traces of fire, and of
 animal bones, and a few shells. In Palestine, there are many more
 bones of deer than of gazelle in these layers; the deer lives in a
 wetter climate than does the gazelle. In the European cave layers, the
@@ -2043,18 +2043,18 @@ bones of fossil men definitely in place with this industry.
 FLAKE INDUSTRIES FROM THE CAVES
 
 Two more stone industries--the _Levalloisian_ and the
-“_Mousterian_”--turn up at approximately the same time in the European
+�_Mousterian_�--turn up at approximately the same time in the European
 cave layers. Their tools seem to be mainly in the flake tradition,
 but according to some of the authorities their preparation also shows
 some combination with the habits by which the core-biface tools were
 prepared.
 
-Now notice that I don’t tell you the Levalloisian and the “Mousterian”
+Now notice that I don�t tell you the Levalloisian and the �Mousterian�
 layers are both above the late Acheulean layers. Look at the cave
-section (p. 57) and you’ll find that some “Mousterian of Acheulean
-tradition” appears above some “typical Mousterian.” This means that
+section (p. 57) and you�ll find that some �Mousterian of Acheulean
+tradition� appears above some �typical Mousterian.� This means that
 there may be some kinds of Acheulean industries that are later than
-some kinds of “Mousterian.” The same is true of the Levalloisian.
+some kinds of �Mousterian.� The same is true of the Levalloisian.
 
 There were now several different kinds of habits that men used in
 making stone tools. These habits were based on either one or the other
@@ -2072,7 +2072,7 @@ were no patent laws in those days.
 
 The extremely complicated interrelationships of the different habits
 used by the tool-makers of this range of time are at last being
-systematically studied. M. François Bordes has developed a statistical
+systematically studied. M. Fran�ois Bordes has developed a statistical
 method of great importance for understanding these tool preparation
 habits.
 
@@ -2081,22 +2081,22 @@ THE LEVALLOISIAN AND MOUSTERIAN
 
 The easiest Levalloisian tool to spot is a big flake tool. The trick
 in making it was to fashion carefully a big chunk of stone (called
-the Levalloisian “tortoise core,” because it resembles the shape of
+the Levalloisian �tortoise core,� because it resembles the shape of
 a turtle-shell) and then to whack this in such a way that a large
 flake flew off. This large thin flake, with sharp cutting edges, is
 the finished Levalloisian tool. There were various other tools in a
 Levalloisian industry, but this is the characteristic _Levalloisian_
 tool.
 
-There are several “typical Mousterian” stone tools. Different from
-the tools of the Levalloisian type, these were made from “disc-like
-cores.” There are medium-sized flake “side scrapers.” There are also
-some small pointed tools and some small “hand axes.” The last of these
+There are several �typical Mousterian� stone tools. Different from
+the tools of the Levalloisian type, these were made from �disc-like
+cores.� There are medium-sized flake �side scrapers.� There are also
+some small pointed tools and some small �hand axes.� The last of these
 tool types is often a flake worked on both of the flat sides (that
 is, bifacially). There are also pieces of flint worked into the form
 of crude balls. The pointed tools may have been fixed on shafts to
 make short jabbing spears; the round flint balls may have been used as
-bolas. Actually, we don’t _know_ what either tool was used for. The
+bolas. Actually, we don�t _know_ what either tool was used for. The
 points and side scrapers are illustrated (pp. 64 and 66).
 
 [Illustration: LEVALLOIS FLAKE]
@@ -2108,9 +2108,9 @@ Nowadays the archeologists are less and less sure of the importance
 of any one specific tool type and name. Twenty years ago, they used
 to speak simply of Acheulean or Levalloisian or Mousterian tools.
 Now, more and more, _all_ of the tools from some one layer in a
-cave are called an “industry,” which is given a mixed name. Thus we
-have “Levalloiso-Mousterian,” and “Acheuleo-Levalloisian,” and even
-“Acheuleo-Mousterian” (or “Mousterian of Acheulean tradition”). Bordes’
+cave are called an �industry,� which is given a mixed name. Thus we
+have �Levalloiso-Mousterian,� and �Acheuleo-Levalloisian,� and even
+�Acheuleo-Mousterian� (or �Mousterian of Acheulean tradition�). Bordes�
 systematic work is beginning to clear up some of our confusion.
 
 The time of these late Acheuleo-Levalloiso-Mousterioid industries
@@ -2120,16 +2120,16 @@ phase of the last great glaciation. It was also the time that the
 classic group of Neanderthal men was living in Europe. A number of
 the Neanderthal fossil finds come from these cave layers. Before the
 different habits of tool preparation were understood it used to be
-popular to say Neanderthal man was “Mousterian man.” I think this is
-wrong. What used to be called “Mousterian” is now known to be a variety
+popular to say Neanderthal man was �Mousterian man.� I think this is
+wrong. What used to be called �Mousterian� is now known to be a variety
 of industries with tools of both core-biface and flake habits, and
-so mixed that the word “Mousterian” used alone really doesn’t mean
+so mixed that the word �Mousterian� used alone really doesn�t mean
 anything. The Neanderthalers doubtless understood the tool preparation
 habits by means of which Acheulean, Levalloisian and Mousterian type
 tools were produced. We also have the more modern-like Mount Carmel
 people, found in a cave layer of Palestine with tools almost entirely
-in the flake tradition, called “Levalloiso-Mousterian,” and the
-Fontéchevade-Tayacian (p. 59).
+in the flake tradition, called �Levalloiso-Mousterian,� and the
+Font�chevade-Tayacian (p. 59).
 
 [Illustration: MOUSTERIAN POINT]
 
@@ -2165,7 +2165,7 @@ which seem to have served as anvils or chopping blocks, are fairly
 common.
 
 Bits of mineral, used as coloring matter, have also been found. We
-don’t know what the color was used for.
+don�t know what the color was used for.
 
 [Illustration: MOUSTERIAN SIDE SCRAPER]
 
@@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ might suggest some notion of hoarding up the spirits or the strength of
 bears killed in the hunt. Probably the people lived in small groups,
 as hunting and food-gathering seldom provide enough food for large
 groups of people. These groups probably had some kind of leader or
-“chief.” Very likely the rude beginnings of rules for community life
+�chief.� Very likely the rude beginnings of rules for community life
 and politics, and even law, were being made. But what these were, we
 do not know. We can only guess about such things, as we can only guess
 about many others; for example, how the idea of a family must have been
@@ -2246,8 +2246,8 @@ small. The mixtures and blendings of the habits used in making stone
 tools must mean that there were also mixtures and blends in many of
 the other ideas and beliefs of these small groups. And what this
 probably means is that there was no one _culture_ of the time. It is
-certainly unlikely that there were simply three cultures, “Acheulean,”
-“Levalloisian,” and “Mousterian,” as has been thought in the past.
+certainly unlikely that there were simply three cultures, �Acheulean,�
+�Levalloisian,� and �Mousterian,� as has been thought in the past.
 Rather there must have been a great variety of loosely related cultures
 at about the same stage of advancement. We could say, too, that here
 we really begin to see, for the first time, that remarkable ability
@@ -2272,7 +2272,7 @@ related habits for the making of tools. But the men who made them must
 have looked much like the men of the West. Their tools were different,
 but just as useful.
 
-As to what the men of the West looked like, I’ve already hinted at all
+As to what the men of the West looked like, I�ve already hinted at all
 we know so far (pp. 29 ff.). The Neanderthalers were present at
 the time. Some more modern-like men must have been about, too, since
 fossils of them have turned up at Mount Carmel in Palestine, and at
@@ -2306,7 +2306,7 @@ A NEW TRADITION APPEARS
 Something new was probably beginning to happen in the
 European-Mediterranean area about 40,000 years ago, though all the
 rest of the Old World seems to have been going on as it had been. I
-can’t be sure of this because the information we are using as a basis
+can�t be sure of this because the information we are using as a basis
 for dates is very inaccurate for the areas outside of Europe and the
 Mediterranean.
 
@@ -2325,7 +2325,7 @@ drawing shows. It has sharp cutting edges, and makes a very useful
 knife. The real trick is to be able to make one. It is almost
 impossible to make a blade out of any stone but flint or a natural
 volcanic glass called obsidian. And even if you have flint or obsidian,
-you first have to work up a special cone-shaped “blade-core,” from
+you first have to work up a special cone-shaped �blade-core,� from
 which to whack off blades.
 
 [Illustration: PLAIN BLADE]
@@ -2351,8 +2351,8 @@ found in equally early cave levels in Syria; their popularity there
 seems to fluctuate a bit. Some more or less parallel-sided flakes are
 known in the Levalloisian industry in France, but they are probably
 no earlier than Tabun E. The Tabun blades are part of a local late
-“Acheulean” industry, which is characterized by core-biface “hand
-axes,” but which has many flake tools as well. Professor F. E.
+�Acheulean� industry, which is characterized by core-biface �hand
+axes,� but which has many flake tools as well. Professor F. E.
 Zeuner believes that this industry may be more than 120,000 years old;
 actually its date has not yet been fixed, but it is very old--older
 than the fossil finds of modern-like men in the same caves.
@@ -2371,7 +2371,7 @@ We are not sure just where the earliest _persisting_ habits for the
 production of blade tools developed. Impressed by the very early
 momentary appearance of blades at Tabun on Mount Carmel, Professor
 Dorothy A. Garrod first favored the Near East as a center of origin.
-She spoke of “some as yet unidentified Asiatic centre,” which she
+She spoke of �some as yet unidentified Asiatic centre,� which she
 thought might be in the highlands of Iran or just beyond. But more
 recent work has been done in this area, especially by Professor Coon,
 and the blade tools do not seem to have an early appearance there. When
@@ -2395,21 +2395,21 @@ core (and the striking of the Levalloisian flake from it) might have
 followed through to the conical core and punch technique for the
 production of blades. Professor Garrod is much impressed with the speed
 of change during the later phases of the last glaciation, and its
-probable consequences. She speaks of “the greater number of industries
+probable consequences. She speaks of �the greater number of industries
 having enough individual character to be classified as distinct ...
-since evolution now starts to outstrip diffusion.” Her “evolution” here
+since evolution now starts to outstrip diffusion.� Her �evolution� here
 is of course an industrial evolution rather than a biological one.
 Certainly the people of Europe had begun to make blade tools during
 the warm spell after the first phase of the last glaciation. By about
 40,000 years ago blades were well established. The bones of the blade
-tool makers we’ve found so far indicate that anatomically modern men
+tool makers we�ve found so far indicate that anatomically modern men
 had now certainly appeared. Unfortunately, only a few fossil men have
 so far been found from the very beginning of the blade tool range in
 Europe (or elsewhere). What I certainly shall _not_ tell you is that
 conquering bands of fine, strong, anatomically modern men, armed with
 superior blade tools, came sweeping out of the East to exterminate the
-lowly Neanderthalers. Even if we don’t know exactly what happened, I’d
-lay a good bet it wasn’t that simple.
+lowly Neanderthalers. Even if we don�t know exactly what happened, I�d
+lay a good bet it wasn�t that simple.
 
 We do know a good deal about different blade industries in Europe.
 Almost all of them come from cave layers. There is a great deal of
@@ -2418,7 +2418,7 @@ this complication; in fact, it doubtless simplifies it too much. But
 it may suggest all the complication of industries which is going
 on at this time. You will note that the upper portion of my much
 simpler chart (p. 65) covers the same material (in the section
-marked “Various Blade-Tool Industries”). That chart is certainly too
+marked �Various Blade-Tool Industries�). That chart is certainly too
 simplified.
 
 You will realize that all this complication comes not only from
@@ -2429,7 +2429,7 @@ a good deal of climatic change at this time. The plants and animals
 that men used for food were changing, too. The great variety of tools
 and industries we now find reflect these changes and the ability of men
 to keep up with the times. Now, for example, is the first time we are
-sure that there are tools to _make_ other tools. They also show men’s
+sure that there are tools to _make_ other tools. They also show men�s
 increasing ability to adapt themselves.
 
 
@@ -2437,15 +2437,15 @@ SPECIAL TYPES OF BLADE TOOLS
 
 The most useful tools that appear at this time were made from blades.
 
-  1. The “backed” blade. This is a knife made of a flint blade, with
-     one edge purposely blunted, probably to save the user’s fingers
+  1. The �backed� blade. This is a knife made of a flint blade, with
+     one edge purposely blunted, probably to save the user�s fingers
      from being cut. There are several shapes of backed blades (p.
      73).
 
   [Illustration: TWO BURINS]
 
-  2. The _burin_ or “graver.” The burin was the original chisel. Its
-     cutting edge is _transverse_, like a chisel’s. Some burins are
+  2. The _burin_ or �graver.� The burin was the original chisel. Its
+     cutting edge is _transverse_, like a chisel�s. Some burins are
      made like a screw-driver, save that burins are sharp. Others have
      edges more like the blade of a chisel or a push plane, with
      only one bevel. Burins were probably used to make slots in wood
@@ -2456,29 +2456,29 @@ The most useful tools that appear at this time were made from blades.
 
 [Illustration: TANGED POINT]
 
-  3. The “tanged” point. These stone points were used to tip arrows or
+  3. The �tanged� point. These stone points were used to tip arrows or
      light spears. They were made from blades, and they had a long tang
      at the bottom where they were fixed to the shaft. At the place
      where the tang met the main body of the stone point, there was
-     a marked “shoulder,” the beginnings of a barb. Such points had
+     a marked �shoulder,� the beginnings of a barb. Such points had
      either one or two shoulders.
 
 [Illustration: NOTCHED BLADE]
 
-  4. The “notched” or “strangulated” blade. Along with the points for
+  4. The �notched� or �strangulated� blade. Along with the points for
      arrows or light spears must go a tool to prepare the arrow or
-     spear shaft. Today, such a tool would be called a “draw-knife” or
-     a “spoke-shave,” and this is what the notched blades probably are.
+     spear shaft. Today, such a tool would be called a �draw-knife� or
+     a �spoke-shave,� and this is what the notched blades probably are.
      Our spoke-shaves have sharp straight cutting blades and really
-     “shave.” Notched blades of flint probably scraped rather than cut.
+     �shave.� Notched blades of flint probably scraped rather than cut.
 
-  5. The “awl,” “drill,” or “borer.” These blade tools are worked out
+  5. The �awl,� �drill,� or �borer.� These blade tools are worked out
      to a spike-like point. They must have been used for making holes
      in wood, bone, shell, skin, or other things.
 
 [Illustration: DRILL OR AWL]
 
-  6. The “end-scraper on a blade” is a tool with one or both ends
+  6. The �end-scraper on a blade� is a tool with one or both ends
      worked so as to give a good scraping edge. It could have been used
      to hollow out wood or bone, scrape hides, remove bark from trees,
      and a number of other things (p. 78).
@@ -2489,11 +2489,11 @@ usually made of blades, but the best examples are so carefully worked
 on both sides (bifacially) that it is impossible to see the original
 blade. This tool is
 
-  7. The “laurel leaf” point. Some of these tools were long and
+  7. The �laurel leaf� point. Some of these tools were long and
      dagger-like, and must have been used as knives or daggers. Others
-     were small, called “willow leaf,” and must have been mounted on
+     were small, called �willow leaf,� and must have been mounted on
      spear or arrow shafts. Another typical Solutrean tool is the
-     “shouldered” point. Both the “laurel leaf” and “shouldered” point
+     �shouldered� point. Both the �laurel leaf� and �shouldered� point
      types are illustrated (see above and p. 79).
 
 [Illustration: END-SCRAPER ON A BLADE]
@@ -2507,17 +2507,17 @@ second is a core tool.
 
 [Illustration: SHOULDERED POINT]
 
-  8. The “keel-shaped round scraper” is usually small and quite round,
+  8. The �keel-shaped round scraper� is usually small and quite round,
      and has had chips removed up to a peak in the center. It is called
-     “keel-shaped” because it is supposed to look (when upside down)
+     �keel-shaped� because it is supposed to look (when upside down)
      like a section through a boat. Actually, it looks more like a tent
      or an umbrella. Its outer edges are sharp all the way around, and
      it was probably a general purpose scraping tool (see illustration,
      p. 81).
 
-  9. The “keel-shaped nosed scraper” is a much larger and heavier tool
+  9. The �keel-shaped nosed scraper� is a much larger and heavier tool
      than the round scraper. It was made on a core with a flat bottom,
-     and has one nicely worked end or “nose.” Such tools are usually
+     and has one nicely worked end or �nose.� Such tools are usually
      large enough to be easily grasped, and probably were used like
      push planes (see illustration, p. 81).
 
@@ -2530,7 +2530,7 @@ the most easily recognized blade tools, although they show differences
 in detail at different times. There are also many other kinds. Not
 all of these tools appear in any one industry at one time. Thus the
 different industries shown in the chart (p. 72) each have only some
-of the blade tools we’ve just listed, and also a few flake tools. Some
+of the blade tools we�ve just listed, and also a few flake tools. Some
 industries even have a few core tools. The particular types of blade
 tools appearing in one cave layer or another, and the frequency of
 appearance of the different types, tell which industry we have in each
@@ -2545,15 +2545,15 @@ to appear. There are knives, pins, needles with eyes, and little
 double-pointed straight bars of bone that were probably fish-hooks. The
 fish-line would have been fastened in the center of the bar; when the
 fish swallowed the bait, the bar would have caught cross-wise in the
-fish’s mouth.
+fish�s mouth.
 
 One quite special kind of bone tool is a long flat point for a light
 spear. It has a deep notch cut up into the breadth of its base, and is
-called a “split-based bone point” (p. 82). We know examples of bone
+called a �split-based bone point� (p. 82). We know examples of bone
 beads from these times, and of bone handles for flint tools. Pierced
 teeth of some animals were worn as beads or pendants, but I am not sure
-that elks’ teeth were worn this early. There are even spool-shaped
-“buttons” or toggles.
+that elks� teeth were worn this early. There are even spool-shaped
+�buttons� or toggles.
 
 [Illustration: SPLIT-BASED BONE POINT]
 
@@ -2595,12 +2595,12 @@ almost to have served as sketch blocks. The surfaces of these various
 objects may show animals, or rather abstract floral designs, or
 geometric designs.
 
-[Illustration: “VENUS” FIGURINE FROM WILLENDORF]
+[Illustration: �VENUS� FIGURINE FROM WILLENDORF]
 
 Some of the movable art is not done on tools. The most remarkable
 examples of this class are little figures of women. These women seem to
 be pregnant, and their most female characteristics are much emphasized.
-It is thought that these “Venus” or “Mother-goddess” figurines may be
+It is thought that these �Venus� or �Mother-goddess� figurines may be
 meant to show the great forces of nature--fertility and the birth of
 life.
 
@@ -2616,21 +2616,21 @@ are different styles in the cave art. The really great cave art is
 pretty well restricted to southern France and Cantabrian (northwestern)
 Spain.
 
-There are several interesting things about the “Franco-Cantabrian” cave
+There are several interesting things about the �Franco-Cantabrian� cave
 art. It was done deep down in the darkest and most dangerous parts of
 the caves, although the men lived only in the openings of caves. If you
 think what they must have had for lights--crude lamps of hollowed stone
 have been found, which must have burned some kind of oil or grease,
 with a matted hair or fiber wick--and of the animals that may have
-lurked in the caves, you’ll understand the part about danger. Then,
-too, we’re sure the pictures these people painted were not simply to be
+lurked in the caves, you�ll understand the part about danger. Then,
+too, we�re sure the pictures these people painted were not simply to be
 looked at and admired, for they painted one picture right over other
 pictures which had been done earlier. Clearly, it was the _act_ of
 _painting_ that counted. The painter had to go way down into the most
 mysterious depths of the earth and create an animal in paint. Possibly
 he believed that by doing this he gained some sort of magic power over
 the same kind of animal when he hunted it in the open air. It certainly
-doesn’t look as if he cared very much about the picture he painted--as
+doesn�t look as if he cared very much about the picture he painted--as
 a finished product to be admired--for he or somebody else soon went
 down and painted another animal right over the one he had done.
 
@@ -2683,10 +2683,10 @@ it.
 Their art is another example of the direction the human mind was
 taking. And when I say human, I mean it in the fullest sense, for this
 is the time in which fully modern man has appeared. On page 34, we
-spoke of the Cro-Magnon group and of the Combe Capelle-Brünn group of
-Caucasoids and of the Grimaldi “Negroids,” who are no longer believed
+spoke of the Cro-Magnon group and of the Combe Capelle-Br�nn group of
+Caucasoids and of the Grimaldi �Negroids,� who are no longer believed
 to be Negroid. I doubt that any one of these groups produced most of
-the achievements of the times. It’s not yet absolutely sure which
+the achievements of the times. It�s not yet absolutely sure which
 particular group produced the great cave art. The artists were almost
 certainly a blend of several (no doubt already mixed) groups. The pair
 of Grimaldians were buried in a grave with a sprinkling of red ochre,
@@ -2705,9 +2705,9 @@ also found about the shore of the Mediterranean basin, and it moved
 into northern Europe as the last glaciation pulled northward. People
 began making blade tools of very small size. They learned how to chip
 very slender and tiny blades from a prepared core. Then they made these
-little blades into tiny triangles, half-moons (“lunates”), trapezoids,
+little blades into tiny triangles, half-moons (�lunates�), trapezoids,
 and several other geometric forms. These little tools are called
-“microliths.” They are so small that most of them must have been fixed
+�microliths.� They are so small that most of them must have been fixed
 in handles or shafts.
 
 [Illustration: MICROLITHS
@@ -2726,7 +2726,7 @@ One corner of each little triangle stuck out, and the whole thing
 made a fine barbed harpoon. In historic times in Egypt, geometric
 trapezoidal microliths were still in use as arrowheads. They were
 fastened--broad end out--on the end of an arrow shaft. It seems queer
-to give an arrow a point shaped like a “T.” Actually, the little points
+to give an arrow a point shaped like a �T.� Actually, the little points
 were very sharp, and must have pierced the hides of animals very
 easily. We also think that the broader cutting edge of the point may
 have caused more bleeding than a pointed arrowhead would. In hunting
@@ -2739,7 +2739,7 @@ is some evidence that they appear early in the Near East. Their use
 was very common in northwest Africa but this came later. The microlith
 makers who reached south Russia and central Europe possibly moved up
 out of the Near East. Or it may have been the other way around; we
-simply don’t yet know.
+simply don�t yet know.
 
 Remember that the microliths we are talking about here were made from
 carefully prepared little blades, and are often geometric in outline.
@@ -2749,7 +2749,7 @@ even some flake scrapers, in most microlithic industries. I emphasize
 this bladelet and the geometric character of the microlithic industries
 of the western Old World, since there has sometimes been confusion in
 the matter. Sometimes small flake chips, utilized as minute pointed
-tools, have been called “microliths.” They may be _microlithic_ in size
+tools, have been called �microliths.� They may be _microlithic_ in size
 in terms of the general meaning of the word, but they do not seem to
 belong to the sub-tradition of the blade tool preparation habits which
 we have been discussing here.
@@ -2763,10 +2763,10 @@ in western Asia too, and early, although Professor Garrod is no longer
 sure that the whole tradition originated in the Near East. If you look
 again at my chart (p. 72) you will note that in western Asia I list
 some of the names of the western European industries, but with the
-qualification “-like” (for example, “Gravettian-like”). The western
+qualification �-like� (for example, �Gravettian-like�). The western
 Asiatic blade-tool industries do vaguely recall some aspects of those
 of western Europe, but we would probably be better off if we used
-completely local names for them. The “Emiran” of my chart is such an
+completely local names for them. The �Emiran� of my chart is such an
 example; its industry includes a long spike-like blade point which has
 no western European counterpart.
 
@@ -2774,13 +2774,13 @@ When we last spoke of Africa (p. 66), I told you that stone tools
 there were continuing in the Levalloisian flake tradition, and were
 becoming smaller. At some time during this process, two new tool
 types appeared in northern Africa: one was the Aterian point with
-a tang (p. 67), and the other was a sort of “laurel leaf” point,
-called the “Sbaikian.” These two tool types were both produced from
+a tang (p. 67), and the other was a sort of �laurel leaf� point,
+called the �Sbaikian.� These two tool types were both produced from
 flakes. The Sbaikian points, especially, are roughly similar to some
 of the Solutrean points of Europe. It has been suggested that both the
 Sbaikian and Aterian points may be seen on their way to France through
 their appearance in the Spanish cave deposits of Parpallo, but there is
-also a rival “pre-Solutrean” in central Europe. We still do not know
+also a rival �pre-Solutrean� in central Europe. We still do not know
 whether there was any contact between the makers of these north African
 tools and the Solutrean tool-makers. What does seem clear is that the
 blade-tool tradition itself arrived late in northern Africa.
@@ -2788,11 +2788,11 @@ blade-tool tradition itself arrived late in northern Africa.
 
 NETHER AFRICA
 
-Blade tools and “laurel leaf” points and some other probably late
+Blade tools and �laurel leaf� points and some other probably late
 stone tool types also appear in central and southern Africa. There
 are geometric microliths on bladelets and even some coarse pottery in
 east Africa. There is as yet no good way of telling just where these
-items belong in time; in broad geological terms they are “late.”
+items belong in time; in broad geological terms they are �late.�
 Some people have guessed that they are as early as similar European
 and Near Eastern examples, but I doubt it. The makers of small-sized
 Levalloisian flake tools occupied much of Africa until very late in
@@ -2823,18 +2823,18 @@ ancestors of the American Indians came from Asia.
 The stone-tool traditions of Europe, Africa, the Near and Middle East,
 and central Siberia, did _not_ move into the New World. With only a
 very few special or late exceptions, there are _no_ core-bifaces,
-flakes, or blade tools of the Old World. Such things just haven’t been
+flakes, or blade tools of the Old World. Such things just haven�t been
 found here.
 
-This is why I say it’s a shame we don’t know more of the end of the
+This is why I say it�s a shame we don�t know more of the end of the
 chopper-tool tradition in the Far East. According to Weidenreich,
 the Mongoloids were in the Far East long before the end of the last
 glaciation. If the genetics of the blood group types do demand a
 non-Mongoloid ancestry for the American Indians, who else may have been
 in the Far East 25,000 years ago? We know a little about the habits
 for making stone tools which these first people brought with them,
-and these habits don’t conform with those of the western Old World.
-We’d better keep our eyes open for whatever happened to the end of
+and these habits don�t conform with those of the western Old World.
+We�d better keep our eyes open for whatever happened to the end of
 the chopper-tool tradition in northern China; already there are hints
 that it lasted late there. Also we should watch future excavations
 in eastern Siberia. Perhaps we shall find the chopper-tool tradition
@@ -2846,13 +2846,13 @@ THE NEW ERA
 Perhaps it comes in part from the way I read the evidence and perhaps
 in part it is only intuition, but I feel that the materials of this
 chapter suggest a new era in the ways of life. Before about 40,000
-years ago, people simply “gathered” their food, wandering over large
+years ago, people simply �gathered� their food, wandering over large
 areas to scavenge or to hunt in a simple sort of way. But here we
-have seen them “settling-in” more, perhaps restricting themselves in
+have seen them �settling-in� more, perhaps restricting themselves in
 their wanderings and adapting themselves to a given locality in more
 intensive ways. This intensification might be suggested by the word
-“collecting.” The ways of life we described in the earlier chapters
-were “food-gathering” ways, but now an era of “food-collecting” has
+�collecting.� The ways of life we described in the earlier chapters
+were �food-gathering� ways, but now an era of �food-collecting� has
 begun. We shall see further intensifications of it in the next chapter.
 
 
@@ -2883,8 +2883,8 @@ The last great glaciation of the Ice Age was a two-part affair, with a
 sub-phase at the end of the second part. In Europe the last sub-phase
 of this glaciation commenced somewhere around 15,000 years ago. Then
 the glaciers began to melt back, for the last time. Remember that
-Professor Antevs (p. 19) isn’t sure the Ice Age is over yet! This
-melting sometimes went by fits and starts, and the weather wasn’t
+Professor Antevs (p. 19) isn�t sure the Ice Age is over yet! This
+melting sometimes went by fits and starts, and the weather wasn�t
 always changing for the better; but there was at least one time when
 European weather was even better than it is now.
 
@@ -2927,16 +2927,16 @@ Sweden. Much of this north European material comes from bogs and swamps
 where it had become water-logged and has kept very well. Thus we have
 much more complete _assemblages_[4] than for any time earlier.
 
-  [4] “Assemblage” is a useful word when there are different kinds of
+  [4] �Assemblage� is a useful word when there are different kinds of
       archeological materials belonging together, from one area and of
-      one time. An assemblage is made up of a number of “industries”
+      one time. An assemblage is made up of a number of �industries�
       (that is, all the tools in chipped stone, all the tools in
       bone, all the tools in wood, the traces of houses, etc.) and
       everything else that manages to survive, such as the art, the
       burials, the bones of the animals used as food, and the traces
       of plant foods; in fact, everything that has been left to us
       and can be used to help reconstruct the lives of the people to
-      whom it once belonged. Our own present-day “assemblage” would be
+      whom it once belonged. Our own present-day �assemblage� would be
       the sum total of all the objects in our mail-order catalogues,
       department stores and supply houses of every sort, our churches,
       our art galleries and other buildings, together with our roads,
@@ -2976,7 +2976,7 @@ found.
 
 It seems likely that the Maglemosian bog finds are remains of summer
 camps, and that in winter the people moved to higher and drier regions.
-Childe calls them the “Forest folk”; they probably lived much the
+Childe calls them the �Forest folk�; they probably lived much the
 same sort of life as did our pre-agricultural Indians of the north
 central states. They hunted small game or deer; they did a great deal
 of fishing; they collected what plant food they could find. In fact,
@@ -3010,7 +3010,7 @@ South of the north European belt the hunting-food-collecting peoples
 were living on as best they could during this time. One interesting
 group, which seems to have kept to the regions of sandy soil and scrub
 forest, made great quantities of geometric microliths. These are the
-materials called _Tardenoisian_. The materials of the “Forest folk” of
+materials called _Tardenoisian_. The materials of the �Forest folk� of
 France and central Europe generally are called _Azilian_; Dr. Movius
 believes the term might best be restricted to the area south of the
 Loire River.
@@ -3032,24 +3032,24 @@ to it than this.
 
 Professor Mathiassen of Copenhagen, who knows the archeological remains
 of this time very well, poses a question. He speaks of the material
-as being neither rich nor progressive, in fact “rather stagnant,” but
-he goes on to add that the people had a certain “receptiveness” and
+as being neither rich nor progressive, in fact �rather stagnant,� but
+he goes on to add that the people had a certain �receptiveness� and
 were able to adapt themselves quickly when the next change did come.
-My own understanding of the situation is that the “Forest folk” made
+My own understanding of the situation is that the �Forest folk� made
 nothing as spectacular as had the producers of the earlier Magdalenian
 assemblage and the Franco-Cantabrian art. On the other hand, they
 _seem_ to have been making many more different kinds of tools for many
 more different kinds of tasks than had their Ice Age forerunners. I
-emphasize “seem” because the preservation in the Maglemosian bogs
+emphasize �seem� because the preservation in the Maglemosian bogs
 is very complete; certainly we cannot list anywhere near as many
 different things for earlier times as we did for the Maglemosians
 (p. 94). I believe this experimentation with all kinds of new tools
 and gadgets, this intensification of adaptiveness (p. 91), this
-“receptiveness,” even if it is still only pointed toward hunting,
+�receptiveness,� even if it is still only pointed toward hunting,
 fishing, and food-collecting, is an important thing.
 
 Remember that the only marker we have handy for the _beginning_ of
-this tendency toward “receptiveness” and experimentation is the
+this tendency toward �receptiveness� and experimentation is the
 little microlithic blade tools of various geometric forms. These, we
 saw, began before the last ice had melted away, and they lasted on
 in use for a very long time. I wish there were a better marker than
@@ -3063,7 +3063,7 @@ CHANGES IN OTHER AREAS?
 All this last section was about Europe. How about the rest of the world
 when the last glaciers were melting away?
 
-We simply don’t know much about this particular time in other parts
+We simply don�t know much about this particular time in other parts
 of the world except in Europe, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle
 East. People were certainly continuing to move into the New World by
 way of Siberia and the Bering Strait about this time. But for the
@@ -3075,10 +3075,10 @@ clear information.
 REAL CHANGE AND PRELUDE IN THE NEAR EAST
 
 The appearance of the microliths and the developments made by the
-“Forest folk” of northwestern Europe also mark an end. They show us
+�Forest folk� of northwestern Europe also mark an end. They show us
 the terminal phase of the old food-collecting way of life. It grows
 increasingly clear that at about the same time that the Maglemosian and
-other “Forest folk” were adapting themselves to hunting, fishing, and
+other �Forest folk� were adapting themselves to hunting, fishing, and
 collecting in new ways to fit the post-glacial environment, something
 completely new was being made ready in western Asia.
 
@@ -3098,7 +3098,7 @@ simply gathering or collecting it. When their food-production
 became reasonably effective, people could and did settle down in
 village-farming communities. With the appearance of the little farming
 villages, a new way of life was actually under way. Professor Childe
-has good reason to speak of the “food-producing revolution,” for it was
+has good reason to speak of the �food-producing revolution,� for it was
 indeed a revolution.
 
 
@@ -3117,8 +3117,8 @@ before the _how_ and _why_ answers begin to appear. Anthropologically
 trained archeologists are fascinated with the cultures of men in times
 of great change. About ten or twelve thousand years ago, the general
 level of culture in many parts of the world seems to have been ready
-for change. In northwestern Europe, we saw that cultures “changed
-just enough so that they would not have to change.” We linked this to
+for change. In northwestern Europe, we saw that cultures �changed
+just enough so that they would not have to change.� We linked this to
 environmental changes with the coming of post-glacial times.
 
 In western Asia, we archeologists can prove that the food-producing
@@ -3155,7 +3155,7 @@ living as the Maglemosians did? These are the questions we still have
 to face.
 
 
-CULTURAL “RECEPTIVENESS” AND PROMISING ENVIRONMENTS
+CULTURAL �RECEPTIVENESS� AND PROMISING ENVIRONMENTS
 
 Until the archeologists and the natural scientists--botanists,
 geologists, zoologists, and general ecologists--have spent many more
@@ -3163,15 +3163,15 @@ years on the problem, we shall not have full _how_ and _why_ answers. I
 do think, however, that we are beginning to understand what to look for.
 
 We shall have to learn much more of what makes the cultures of men
-“receptive” and experimental. Did change in the environment alone
-force it? Was it simply a case of Professor Toynbee’s “challenge and
-response?” I cannot believe the answer is quite that simple. Were it
-so simple, we should want to know why the change hadn’t come earlier,
+�receptive� and experimental. Did change in the environment alone
+force it? Was it simply a case of Professor Toynbee�s �challenge and
+response?� I cannot believe the answer is quite that simple. Were it
+so simple, we should want to know why the change hadn�t come earlier,
 along with earlier environmental changes. We shall not know the answer,
 however, until we have excavated the traces of many more cultures of
 the time in question. We shall doubtless also have to learn more about,
 and think imaginatively about, the simpler cultures still left today.
-The “mechanics” of culture in general will be bound to interest us.
+The �mechanics� of culture in general will be bound to interest us.
 
 It will also be necessary to learn much more of the environments of
 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. In which regions of the world were the
@@ -3228,7 +3228,7 @@ THE OLD THEORY TOO SIMPLE FOR THE FACTS
 
 This theory was set up before we really knew anything in detail about
 the later prehistory of the Near and Middle East. We now know that
-the facts which have been found don’t fit the old theory at all well.
+the facts which have been found don�t fit the old theory at all well.
 Also, I have yet to find an American meteorologist who feels that we
 know enough about the changes in the weather pattern to say that it can
 have been so simple and direct. And, of course, the glacial ice which
@@ -3238,7 +3238,7 @@ of great alpine glaciers, and long periods of warm weather in between.
 If the rain belt moved north as the glaciers melted for the last time,
 it must have moved in the same direction in earlier times. Thus, the
 forced neighborliness of men, plants, and animals in river valleys and
-oases must also have happened earlier. Why didn’t domestication happen
+oases must also have happened earlier. Why didn�t domestication happen
 earlier, then?
 
 Furthermore, it does not seem to be in the oases and river valleys
@@ -3275,20 +3275,20 @@ archeologists, probably through habit, favor an old scheme of Grecized
 names for the subdivisions: paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic. I
 refuse to use these words myself. They have meant too many different
 things to too many different people and have tended to hide some pretty
-fuzzy thinking. Probably you haven’t even noticed my own scheme of
-subdivision up to now, but I’d better tell you in general what it is.
+fuzzy thinking. Probably you haven�t even noticed my own scheme of
+subdivision up to now, but I�d better tell you in general what it is.
 
 I think of the earliest great group of archeological materials, from
 which we can deduce only a food-gathering way of culture, as the
-_food-gathering stage_. I say “stage” rather than “age,” because it
+_food-gathering stage_. I say �stage� rather than �age,� because it
 is not quite over yet; there are still a few primitive people in
 out-of-the-way parts of the world who remain in the _food-gathering
 stage_. In fact, Professor Julian Steward would probably prefer to call
 it a food-gathering _level_ of existence, rather than a stage. This
 would be perfectly acceptable to me. I also tend to find myself using
 _collecting_, rather than _gathering_, for the more recent aspects or
-era of the stage, as the word “collecting” appears to have more sense
-of purposefulness and specialization than does “gathering” (see p.
+era of the stage, as the word �collecting� appears to have more sense
+of purposefulness and specialization than does �gathering� (see p.
 91).
 
 Now, while I think we could make several possible subdivisions of the
@@ -3297,22 +3297,22 @@ believe the only one which means much to us here is the last or
 _terminal sub-era of food-collecting_ of the whole food-gathering
 stage. The microliths seem to mark its approach in the northwestern
 part of the Old World. It is really shown best in the Old World by
-the materials of the “Forest folk,” the cultural adaptation to the
+the materials of the �Forest folk,� the cultural adaptation to the
 post-glacial environment in northwestern Europe. We talked about
-the “Forest folk” at the beginning of this chapter, and I used the
+the �Forest folk� at the beginning of this chapter, and I used the
 Maglemosian assemblage of Denmark as an example.
 
   [5] It is difficult to find words which have a sequence or gradation
       of meaning with respect to both development and a range of time
       in the past, or with a range of time from somewhere in the past
       which is perhaps not yet ended. One standard Webster definition
-      of _stage_ is: “One of the steps into which the material
-      development of man ... is divided.” I cannot find any dictionary
+      of _stage_ is: �One of the steps into which the material
+      development of man ... is divided.� I cannot find any dictionary
       definition that suggests which of the words, _stage_ or _era_,
       has the meaning of a longer span of time. Therefore, I have
       chosen to let my eras be shorter, and to subdivide my stages
-      into eras. Webster gives _era_ as: “A signal stage of history,
-      an epoch.” When I want to subdivide my eras, I find myself using
+      into eras. Webster gives _era_ as: �A signal stage of history,
+      an epoch.� When I want to subdivide my eras, I find myself using
       _sub-eras_. Thus I speak of the _eras_ within a _stage_ and of
       the _sub-eras_ within an _era_; that is, I do so when I feel
       that I really have to, and when the evidence is clear enough to
@@ -3328,9 +3328,9 @@ realms of culture. It is rather that for most of prehistoric time the
 materials left to the archeologists tend to limit our deductions to
 technology and economics.
 
-I’m so soon out of my competence, as conventional ancient history
+I�m so soon out of my competence, as conventional ancient history
 begins, that I shall only suggest the earlier eras of the
-food-producing stage to you. This book is about prehistory, and I’m not
+food-producing stage to you. This book is about prehistory, and I�m not
 a universal historian.
 
 
@@ -3339,28 +3339,28 @@ THE TWO EARLIEST ERAS OF THE FOOD-PRODUCING STAGE
 The food-producing stage seems to appear in western Asia with really
 revolutionary suddenness. It is seen by the relative speed with which
 the traces of new crafts appear in the earliest village-farming
-community sites we’ve dug. It is seen by the spread and multiplication
+community sites we�ve dug. It is seen by the spread and multiplication
 of these sites themselves, and the remarkable growth in human
-population we deduce from this increase in sites. We’ll look at some
+population we deduce from this increase in sites. We�ll look at some
 of these sites and the archeological traces they yield in the next
 chapter. When such village sites begin to appear, I believe we are in
 the _era of the primary village-farming community_. I also believe this
 is the second era of the food-producing stage.
 
 The first era of the food-producing stage, I believe, was an _era of
-incipient cultivation and animal domestication_. I keep saying “I
-believe” because the actual evidence for this earlier era is so slight
+incipient cultivation and animal domestication_. I keep saying �I
+believe� because the actual evidence for this earlier era is so slight
 that one has to set it up mainly by playing a hunch for it. The reason
 for playing the hunch goes about as follows.
 
 One thing we seem to be able to see, in the food-collecting era in
 general, is a tendency for people to begin to settle down. This
 settling down seemed to become further intensified in the terminal
-era. How this is connected with Professor Mathiassen’s “receptiveness”
+era. How this is connected with Professor Mathiassen�s �receptiveness�
 and the tendency to be experimental, we do not exactly know. The
 evidence from the New World comes into play here as well as that from
 the Old World. With this settling down in one place, the people of the
-terminal era--especially the “Forest folk” whom we know best--began
+terminal era--especially the �Forest folk� whom we know best--began
 making a great variety of new things. I remarked about this earlier in
 the chapter. Dr. Robert M. Adams is of the opinion that this atmosphere
 of experimentation with new tools--with new ways of collecting food--is
@@ -3368,9 +3368,9 @@ the kind of atmosphere in which one might expect trials at planting
 and at animal domestication to have been made. We first begin to find
 traces of more permanent life in outdoor camp sites, although caves
 were still inhabited at the beginning of the terminal era. It is not
-surprising at all that the “Forest folk” had already domesticated the
+surprising at all that the �Forest folk� had already domesticated the
 dog. In this sense, the whole era of food-collecting was becoming ready
-and almost “incipient” for cultivation and animal domestication.
+and almost �incipient� for cultivation and animal domestication.
 
 Northwestern Europe was not the place for really effective beginnings
 in agriculture and animal domestication. These would have had to take
@@ -3425,13 +3425,13 @@ zone which surrounds the drainage basin of the Tigris and Euphrates
 Rivers at elevations of from approximately 2,000 to 5,000 feet. The
 lower alluvial land of the Tigris-Euphrates basin itself has very
 little rainfall. Some years ago Professor James Henry Breasted called
-the alluvial lands of the Tigris-Euphrates a part of the “fertile
-crescent.” These alluvial lands are very fertile if irrigated. Breasted
+the alluvial lands of the Tigris-Euphrates a part of the �fertile
+crescent.� These alluvial lands are very fertile if irrigated. Breasted
 was most interested in the oriental civilizations of conventional
 ancient history, and irrigation had been discovered before they
 appeared.
 
-The country of hilly flanks above Breasted’s crescent receives from
+The country of hilly flanks above Breasted�s crescent receives from
 10 to 20 or more inches of winter rainfall each year, which is about
 what Kansas has. Above the hilly-flanks zone tower the peaks and ridges
 of the Lebanon-Amanus chain bordering the coast-line from Palestine
@@ -3440,7 +3440,7 @@ range of the Iraq-Iran borderland. This rugged mountain frame for our
 hilly-flanks zone rises to some magnificent alpine scenery, with peaks
 of from ten to fifteen thousand feet in elevation. There are several
 gaps in the Mediterranean coastal portion of the frame, through which
-the winter’s rain-bearing winds from the sea may break so as to carry
+the winter�s rain-bearing winds from the sea may break so as to carry
 rain to the foothills of the Taurus and the Zagros.
 
 The picture I hope you will have from this description is that of an
@@ -3482,7 +3482,7 @@ hilly-flanks zone in their wild state.
 With a single exception--that of the dog--the earliest positive
 evidence of domestication includes the two forms of wheat, the barley,
 and the goat. The evidence comes from within the hilly-flanks zone.
-However, it comes from a settled village proper, Jarmo (which I’ll
+However, it comes from a settled village proper, Jarmo (which I�ll
 describe in the next chapter), and is thus from the era of the primary
 village-farming community. We are still without positive evidence of
 domesticated grain and animals in the first era of the food-producing
@@ -3534,9 +3534,9 @@ and the spread of ideas of people who had passed on into one of the
 more developed eras. In many cases, the terminal era of food-collecting
 was ended by the incoming of the food-producing peoples themselves.
 For example, the practices of food-production were carried into Europe
-by the actual movement of some numbers of peoples (we don’t know how
+by the actual movement of some numbers of peoples (we don�t know how
 many) who had reached at least the level of the primary village-farming
-community. The “Forest folk” learned food-production from them. There
+community. The �Forest folk� learned food-production from them. There
 was never an era of incipient cultivation and domestication proper in
 Europe, if my hunch is right.
 
@@ -3547,16 +3547,16 @@ The way I see it, two things were required in order that an era of
 incipient cultivation and domestication could begin. First, there had
 to be the natural environment of a nuclear area, with its whole group
 of plants and animals capable of domestication. This is the aspect of
-the matter which we’ve said is directly given by nature. But it is
+the matter which we�ve said is directly given by nature. But it is
 quite possible that such an environment with such a group of plants
 and animals in it may have existed well before ten thousand years ago
 in the Near East. It is also quite possible that the same promising
 condition may have existed in regions which never developed into
 nuclear areas proper. Here, again, we come back to the cultural factor.
-I think it was that “atmosphere of experimentation” we’ve talked about
-once or twice before. I can’t define it for you, other than to say that
+I think it was that �atmosphere of experimentation� we�ve talked about
+once or twice before. I can�t define it for you, other than to say that
 by the end of the Ice Age, the general level of many cultures was ready
-for change. Ask me how and why this was so, and I’ll tell you we don’t
+for change. Ask me how and why this was so, and I�ll tell you we don�t
 know yet, and that if we did understand this kind of question, there
 would be no need for me to go on being a prehistorian!
 
@@ -3590,7 +3590,7 @@ such collections for the modern wild forms of animals and plants from
 some of our nuclear areas. In the nuclear area in the Near East, some
 of the wild animals, at least, have already become extinct. There are
 no longer wild cattle or wild horses in western Asia. We know they were
-there from the finds we’ve made in caves of late Ice Age times, and
+there from the finds we�ve made in caves of late Ice Age times, and
 from some slightly later sites.
 
 
@@ -3601,7 +3601,7 @@ incipient era of cultivation and animal domestication. I am closing
 this chapter with descriptions of two of the best Near Eastern examples
 I know of. You may not be satisfied that what I am able to describe
 makes a full-bodied era of development at all. Remember, however, that
-I’ve told you I’m largely playing a kind of a hunch, and also that the
+I�ve told you I�m largely playing a kind of a hunch, and also that the
 archeological materials of this era will always be extremely difficult
 to interpret. At the beginning of any new way of life, there will be a
 great tendency for people to make-do, at first, with tools and habits
@@ -3613,7 +3613,7 @@ THE NATUFIAN, AN ASSEMBLAGE OF THE INCIPIENT ERA
 
 The assemblage called the Natufian comes from the upper layers of a
 number of caves in Palestine. Traces of its flint industry have also
-turned up in Syria and Lebanon. We don’t know just how old it is. I
+turned up in Syria and Lebanon. We don�t know just how old it is. I
 guess that it probably falls within five hundred years either way of
 about 5000 B.C.
 
@@ -3662,7 +3662,7 @@ pendants. There were also beads and pendants of pierced teeth and shell.
 A number of Natufian burials have been found in the caves; some burials
 were grouped together in one grave. The people who were buried within
 the Mount Carmel cave were laid on their backs in an extended position,
-while those on the terrace seem to have been “flexed” (placed in their
+while those on the terrace seem to have been �flexed� (placed in their
 graves in a curled-up position). This may mean no more than that it was
 easier to dig a long hole in cave dirt than in the hard-packed dirt of
 the terrace. The people often had some kind of object buried with them,
@@ -3679,7 +3679,7 @@ beads.
   GROUND STONE
   BONE]
 
-The animal bones of the Natufian layers show beasts of a “modern” type,
+The animal bones of the Natufian layers show beasts of a �modern� type,
 but with some differences from those of present-day Palestine. The
 bones of the gazelle far outnumber those of the deer; since gazelles
 like a much drier climate than deer, Palestine must then have had much
@@ -3692,9 +3692,9 @@ Maglemosian of northern Europe. More recently, it has been reported
 that a domesticated goat is also part of the Natufian finds.
 
 The study of the human bones from the Natufian burials is not yet
-complete. Until Professor McCown’s study becomes available, we may note
-Professor Coon’s assessment that these people were of a “basically
-Mediterranean type.”
+complete. Until Professor McCown�s study becomes available, we may note
+Professor Coon�s assessment that these people were of a �basically
+Mediterranean type.�
 
 
 THE KARIM SHAHIR ASSEMBLAGE
@@ -3704,11 +3704,11 @@ of a temporary open site or encampment. It lies on the top of a bluff
 in the Kurdish hill-country of northeastern Iraq. It was dug by Dr.
 Bruce Howe of the expedition I directed in 1950-51 for the Oriental
 Institute and the American Schools of Oriental Research. In 1954-55,
-our expedition located another site, M’lefaat, with general resemblance
+our expedition located another site, M�lefaat, with general resemblance
 to Karim Shahir, but about a hundred miles north of it. In 1956, Dr.
 Ralph Solecki located still another Karim Shahir type of site called
 Zawi Chemi Shanidar. The Zawi Chemi site has a radiocarbon date of 8900
-± 300 B.C.
+� 300 B.C.
 
 Karim Shahir has evidence of only one very shallow level of occupation.
 It was probably not lived on very long, although the people who lived
@@ -3717,7 +3717,7 @@ layer yielded great numbers of fist-sized cracked pieces of limestone,
 which had been carried up from the bed of a stream at the bottom of the
 bluff. We think these cracked stones had something to do with a kind of
 architecture, but we were unable to find positive traces of hut plans.
-At M’lefaat and Zawi Chemi, there were traces of rounded hut plans.
+At M�lefaat and Zawi Chemi, there were traces of rounded hut plans.
 
 As in the Natufian, the great bulk of small objects of the Karim Shahir
 assemblage was in chipped flint. A large proportion of the flint tools
@@ -3737,7 +3737,7 @@ clay figurines which seemed to be of animal form.
   UNBAKED CLAY
   SHELL
   BONE
-  “ARCHITECTURE”]
+  �ARCHITECTURE�]
 
 Karim Shahir did not yield direct evidence of the kind of vegetable
 food its people ate. The animal bones showed a considerable
@@ -3746,7 +3746,7 @@ domestication--sheep, goat, cattle, horse, dog--as compared with animal
 bones from the earlier cave sites of the area, which have a high
 proportion of bones of wild forms like deer and gazelle. But we do not
 know that any of the Karim Shahir animals were actually domesticated.
-Some of them may have been, in an “incipient” way, but we have no means
+Some of them may have been, in an �incipient� way, but we have no means
 at the moment that will tell us from the bones alone.
 
 
@@ -3761,7 +3761,7 @@ goat, and the general animal situation at Karim Shahir to hint at an
 incipient approach to food-production. At Karim Shahir, there was the
 tendency to settle down out in the open; this is echoed by the new
 reports of open air Natufian sites. The large number of cracked stones
-certainly indicates that it was worth the peoples’ while to have some
+certainly indicates that it was worth the peoples� while to have some
 kind of structure, even if the site as a whole was short-lived.
 
 It is a part of my hunch that these things all point toward
@@ -3771,13 +3771,13 @@ which we shall look at next, are fully food-producing, the Natufian
 and Karim Shahir folk had not yet arrived. I think they were part of
 a general build-up to full scale food-production. They were possibly
 controlling a few animals of several kinds and perhaps one or two
-plants, without realizing the full possibilities of this “control” as a
+plants, without realizing the full possibilities of this �control� as a
 new way of life.
 
 This is why I think of the Karim Shahir and Natufian folk as being at
 a level, or in an era, of incipient cultivation and domestication. But
 we shall have to do a great deal more excavation in this range of time
-before we’ll get the kind of positive information we need.
+before we�ll get the kind of positive information we need.
 
 
 SUMMARY
@@ -3798,7 +3798,7 @@ history.
 
 We know the earliest village-farming communities appeared in western
 Asia, in a nuclear area. We do not yet know why the Near Eastern
-experiment came first, or why it didn’t happen earlier in some other
+experiment came first, or why it didn�t happen earlier in some other
 nuclear area. Apparently, the level of culture and the promise of the
 natural environment were ready first in western Asia. The next sites
 we look at will show a simple but effective food-production already
@@ -3835,7 +3835,7 @@ contrast between food-collecting and food-producing as ways of life.
 
 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOOD-COLLECTORS AND FOOD-PRODUCERS
 
-Childe used the word “revolution” because of the radical change that
+Childe used the word �revolution� because of the radical change that
 took place in the habits and customs of man. Food-collectors--that is,
 hunters, fishers, berry- and nut-gatherers--had to live in small groups
 or bands, for they had to be ready to move wherever their food supply
@@ -3851,7 +3851,7 @@ for clothing beyond the tools that were probably used to dress the
 skins of animals; no time to think of much of anything but food and
 protection and disposal of the dead when death did come: an existence
 which takes nature as it finds it, which does little or nothing to
-modify nature--all in all, a savage’s existence, and a very tough one.
+modify nature--all in all, a savage�s existence, and a very tough one.
 A man who spends his whole life following animals just to kill them to
 eat, or moving from one berry patch to another, is really living just
 like an animal himself.
@@ -3859,10 +3859,10 @@ like an animal himself.
 
 THE FOOD-PRODUCING ECONOMY
 
-Against this picture let me try to draw another--that of man’s life
-after food-production had begun. His meat was stored “on the hoof,”
+Against this picture let me try to draw another--that of man�s life
+after food-production had begun. His meat was stored �on the hoof,�
 his grain in silos or great pottery jars. He lived in a house: it was
-worth his while to build one, because he couldn’t move far from his
+worth his while to build one, because he couldn�t move far from his
 fields and flocks. In his neighborhood enough food could be grown
 and enough animals bred so that many people were kept busy. They all
 lived close to their flocks and fields, in a village. The village was
@@ -3872,7 +3872,7 @@ Children and old men could shepherd the animals by day or help with
 the lighter work in the fields. After the crops had been harvested the
 younger men might go hunting and some of them would fish, but the food
 they brought in was only an addition to the food in the village; the
-villagers wouldn’t starve, even if the hunters and fishermen came home
+villagers wouldn�t starve, even if the hunters and fishermen came home
 empty-handed.
 
 There was more time to do different things, too. They began to modify
@@ -3885,23 +3885,23 @@ people in the village who were becoming full-time craftsmen.
 Other things were changing, too. The villagers must have had
 to agree on new rules for living together. The head man of the
 village had problems different from those of the chief of the small
-food-collectors’ band. If somebody’s flock of sheep spoiled a wheat
+food-collectors� band. If somebody�s flock of sheep spoiled a wheat
 field, the owner wanted payment for the grain he lost. The chief of
 the hunters was never bothered with such questions. Even the gods
 had changed. The spirits and the magic that had been used by hunters
-weren’t of any use to the villagers. They needed gods who would watch
+weren�t of any use to the villagers. They needed gods who would watch
 over the fields and the flocks, and they eventually began to erect
 buildings where their gods might dwell, and where the men who knew most
 about the gods might live.
 
 
-WAS FOOD-PRODUCTION A “REVOLUTION”?
+WAS FOOD-PRODUCTION A �REVOLUTION�?
 
 If you can see the difference between these two pictures--between
 life in the food-collecting stage and life after food-production
-had begun--you’ll see why Professor Childe speaks of a revolution.
-By revolution, he doesn’t mean that it happened over night or that
-it happened only once. We don’t know exactly how long it took. Some
+had begun--you�ll see why Professor Childe speaks of a revolution.
+By revolution, he doesn�t mean that it happened over night or that
+it happened only once. We don�t know exactly how long it took. Some
 people think that all these changes may have occurred in less than
 500 years, but I doubt that. The incipient era was probably an affair
 of some duration. Once the level of the village-farming community had
@@ -3915,7 +3915,7 @@ been achieved with truly revolutionary suddenness.
 
 GAPS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEAR EAST
 
-If you’ll look again at the chart (p. 111) you’ll see that I have
+If you�ll look again at the chart (p. 111) you�ll see that I have
 very few sites and assemblages to name in the incipient era of
 cultivation and domestication, and not many in the earlier part of
 the primary village-farming level either. Thanks in no small part
@@ -3926,20 +3926,20 @@ yard-stick here. But I am far from being able to show you a series of
 Sears Roebuck catalogues, even century by century, for any part of
 the nuclear area. There is still a great deal of earth to move, and a
 great mass of material to recover and interpret before we even begin to
-understand “how” and “why.”
+understand �how� and �why.�
 
 Perhaps here, because this kind of archeology is really my specialty,
-you’ll excuse it if I become personal for a moment. I very much look
+you�ll excuse it if I become personal for a moment. I very much look
 forward to having further part in closing some of the gaps in knowledge
-of the Near East. This is not, as I’ve told you, the spectacular
+of the Near East. This is not, as I�ve told you, the spectacular
 range of Near Eastern archeology. There are no royal tombs, no gold,
 no great buildings or sculpture, no writing, in fact nothing to
 excite the normal museum at all. Nevertheless it is a range which,
 idea-wise, gives the archeologist tremendous satisfaction. The country
 of the hilly flanks is an exciting combination of green grasslands
 and mountainous ridges. The Kurds, who inhabit the part of the area
-in which I’ve worked most recently, are an extremely interesting and
-hospitable people. Archeologists don’t become rich, but I’ll forego
+in which I�ve worked most recently, are an extremely interesting and
+hospitable people. Archeologists don�t become rich, but I�ll forego
 the Cadillac for any bright spring morning in the Kurdish hills, on a
 good site with a happy crew of workmen and an interested and efficient
 staff. It is probably impossible to convey the full feeling which life
@@ -3965,15 +3965,15 @@ like the use of pottery borrowed from the more developed era of the
 same time in the nuclear area. The same general explanation doubtless
 holds true for certain materials in Egypt, along the upper Nile and in
 the Kharga oasis: these materials, called Sebilian III, the Khartoum
-“neolithic,” and the Khargan microlithic, are from surface sites,
+�neolithic,� and the Khargan microlithic, are from surface sites,
 not from caves. The chart (p. 111) shows where I would place these
 materials in era and time.
 
 [Illustration: THE HILLY FLANKS OF THE CRESCENT AND EARLY SITES OF THE
 NEAR EAST]
 
-Both M’lefaat and Dr. Solecki’s Zawi Chemi Shanidar site appear to have
-been slightly more “settled in” than was Karim Shahir itself. But I do
+Both M�lefaat and Dr. Solecki�s Zawi Chemi Shanidar site appear to have
+been slightly more �settled in� than was Karim Shahir itself. But I do
 not think they belong to the era of farming-villages proper. The first
 site of this era, in the hills of Iraqi Kurdistan, is Jarmo, on which
 we have spent three seasons of work. Following Jarmo comes a variety of
@@ -3989,9 +3989,9 @@ times when their various cultures flourished, there must have been
 many little villages which shared the same general assemblage. We are
 only now beginning to locate them again. Thus, if I speak of Jarmo,
 or Jericho, or Sialk as single examples of their particular kinds of
-assemblages, I don’t mean that they were unique at all. I think I could
+assemblages, I don�t mean that they were unique at all. I think I could
 take you to the sites of at least three more Jarmos, within twenty
-miles of the original one. They are there, but they simply haven’t yet
+miles of the original one. They are there, but they simply haven�t yet
 been excavated. In 1956, a Danish expedition discovered material of
 Jarmo type at Shimshara, only two dozen miles northeast of Jarmo, and
 below an assemblage of Hassunan type (which I shall describe presently).
@@ -4000,15 +4000,15 @@ below an assemblage of Hassunan type (which I shall describe presently).
 THE GAP BETWEEN KARIM SHAHIR AND JARMO
 
 As we see the matter now, there is probably still a gap in the
-available archeological record between the Karim Shahir-M’lefaat-Zawi
+available archeological record between the Karim Shahir-M�lefaat-Zawi
 Chemi group (of the incipient era) and that of Jarmo (of the
 village-farming era). Although some items of the Jarmo type materials
 do reflect the beginnings of traditions set in the Karim Shahir group
 (see p. 120), there is not a clear continuity. Moreover--to the
 degree that we may trust a few radiocarbon dates--there would appear
 to be around two thousand years of difference in time. The single
-available Zawi Chemi “date” is 8900 ± 300 B.C.; the most reasonable
-group of “dates” from Jarmo average to about 6750 ± 200 B.C. I am
+available Zawi Chemi �date� is 8900 � 300 B.C.; the most reasonable
+group of �dates� from Jarmo average to about 6750 � 200 B.C. I am
 uncertain about this two thousand years--I do not think it can have
 been so long.
 
@@ -4021,7 +4021,7 @@ JARMO, IN THE KURDISH HILLS, IRAQ
 
 The site of Jarmo has a depth of deposit of about twenty-seven feet,
 and approximately a dozen layers of architectural renovation and
-change. Nevertheless it is a “one period” site: its assemblage remains
+change. Nevertheless it is a �one period� site: its assemblage remains
 essentially the same throughout, although one or two new items are
 added in later levels. It covers about four acres of the top of a
 bluff, below which runs a small stream. Jarmo lies in the hill country
@@ -4078,7 +4078,7 @@ human beings in clay; one type of human figurine they favored was that
 of a markedly pregnant woman, probably the expression of some sort of
 fertility spirit. They provided their house floors with baked-in-place
 depressions, either as basins or hearths, and later with domed ovens of
-clay. As we’ve noted, the houses themselves were of clay or mud; one
+clay. As we�ve noted, the houses themselves were of clay or mud; one
 could almost say they were built up like a house-sized pot. Then,
 finally, the idea of making portable pottery itself appeared, although
 I very much doubt that the people of the Jarmo village discovered the
@@ -4095,11 +4095,11 @@ over three hundred miles to the north. Already a bulk carrying trade
 had been established--the forerunner of commerce--and the routes were
 set by which, in later times, the metal trade was to move.
 
-There are now twelve radioactive carbon “dates” from Jarmo. The most
-reasonable cluster of determinations averages to about 6750 ± 200
-B.C., although there is a completely unreasonable range of “dates”
+There are now twelve radioactive carbon �dates� from Jarmo. The most
+reasonable cluster of determinations averages to about 6750 � 200
+B.C., although there is a completely unreasonable range of �dates�
 running from 3250 to 9250 B.C.! _If_ I am right in what I take to be
-“reasonable,” the first flush of the food-producing revolution had been
+�reasonable,� the first flush of the food-producing revolution had been
 achieved almost nine thousand years ago.
 
 
@@ -4117,7 +4117,7 @@ it, but the Hassunan sites seem to cluster at slightly lower elevations
 than those we have been talking about so far.
 
 The catalogue of the Hassuna assemblage is of course more full and
-elaborate than that of Jarmo. The Iraqi government’s archeologists
+elaborate than that of Jarmo. The Iraqi government�s archeologists
 who dug Hassuna itself, exposed evidence of increasing architectural
 know-how. The walls of houses were still formed of puddled mud;
 sun-dried bricks appear only in later periods. There were now several
@@ -4130,16 +4130,16 @@ largely disappeared by Hassunan times. The flint work of the Hassunan
 catalogue is, by and large, a wretched affair. We might guess that the
 kinaesthetic concentration of the Hassuna craftsmen now went into other
 categories; that is, they suddenly discovered they might have more fun
-working with the newer materials. It’s a shame, for example, that none
+working with the newer materials. It�s a shame, for example, that none
 of their weaving is preserved for us.
 
 The two available radiocarbon determinations from Hassunan contexts
-stand at about 5100 and 5600 B.C. ± 250 years.
+stand at about 5100 and 5600 B.C. � 250 years.
 
 
 OTHER EARLY VILLAGE SITES IN THE NUCLEAR AREA
 
-I’ll now name and very briefly describe a few of the other early
+I�ll now name and very briefly describe a few of the other early
 village assemblages either in or adjacent to the hilly flanks of the
 crescent. Unfortunately, we do not have radioactive carbon dates for
 many of these materials. We may guess that some particular assemblage,
@@ -4177,7 +4177,7 @@ ecological niche, some seven hundred feet below sea level; it is
 geographically within the hilly-flanks zone but environmentally not
 part of it.
 
-Several radiocarbon “dates” for Jericho fall within the range of those
+Several radiocarbon �dates� for Jericho fall within the range of those
 I find reasonable for Jarmo, and their internal statistical consistency
 is far better than that for the Jarmo determinations. It is not yet
 clear exactly what this means.
@@ -4226,7 +4226,7 @@ how things were made are different; the Sialk assemblage represents
 still another cultural pattern. I suspect it appeared a bit later
 in time than did that of Hassuna. There is an important new item in
 the Sialk catalogue. The Sialk people made small drills or pins of
-hammered copper. Thus the metallurgist’s specialized craft had made its
+hammered copper. Thus the metallurgist�s specialized craft had made its
 appearance.
 
 There is at least one very early Iranian site on the inward slopes
@@ -4246,7 +4246,7 @@ shore of the Fayum lake. The Fayum materials come mainly from grain
 bins or silos. Another site, Merimde, in the western part of the Nile
 delta, shows the remains of a true village, but it may be slightly
 later than the settlement of the Fayum. There are radioactive carbon
-“dates” for the Fayum materials at about 4275 B.C. ± 320 years, which
+�dates� for the Fayum materials at about 4275 B.C. � 320 years, which
 is almost fifteen hundred years later than the determinations suggested
 for the Hassunan or Syro-Cilician assemblages. I suspect that this
 is a somewhat over-extended indication of the time it took for the
@@ -4260,13 +4260,13 @@ the mound called Shaheinab. The Shaheinab catalogue roughly corresponds
 to that of the Fayum; the distance between the two places, as the Nile
 flows, is roughly 1,500 miles. Thus it took almost a thousand years for
 the new way of life to be carried as far south into Africa as Khartoum;
-the two Shaheinab “dates” average about 3300 B.C. ± 400 years.
+the two Shaheinab �dates� average about 3300 B.C. � 400 years.
 
 If the movement was up the Nile (southward), as these dates suggest,
 then I suspect that the earliest available village material of middle
 Egypt, the so-called Tasian, is also later than that of the Fayum. The
 Tasian materials come from a few graves near a village called Deir
-Tasa, and I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Tasian “assemblage”
+Tasa, and I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Tasian �assemblage�
 may be mainly an artificial selection of poor examples of objects which
 belong in the following range of time.
 
@@ -4280,7 +4280,7 @@ spread outward in space from the nuclear area, as time went on. There
 is good archeological evidence that both these processes took place.
 For the hill country of northeastern Iraq, in the nuclear area, we
 have already noticed how the succession (still with gaps) from Karim
-Shahir, through M’lefaat and Jarmo, to Hassuna can be charted (see
+Shahir, through M�lefaat and Jarmo, to Hassuna can be charted (see
 chart, p. 111). In the next chapter, we shall continue this charting
 and description of what happened in Iraq upward through time. We also
 watched traces of the new way of life move through space up the Nile
@@ -4299,7 +4299,7 @@ appearance of the village-farming community there--is still an open
 one. In the last chapter, we noted the probability of an independent
 nuclear area in southeastern Asia. Professor Carl Sauer strongly
 champions the great importance of this area as _the_ original center
-of agricultural pursuits, as a kind of “cradle” of all incipient eras
+of agricultural pursuits, as a kind of �cradle� of all incipient eras
 of the Old World at least. While there is certainly not the slightest
 archeological evidence to allow us to go that far, we may easily expect
 that an early southeast Asian development would have been felt in
@@ -4311,13 +4311,13 @@ way of life moved well beyond Khartoum in Africa.
 
 THE SPREAD OF THE VILLAGE-FARMING COMMUNITY WAY OF LIFE INTO EUROPE
 
-How about Europe? I won’t give you many details. You can easily imagine
+How about Europe? I won�t give you many details. You can easily imagine
 that the late prehistoric prelude to European history is a complicated
 affair. We all know very well how complicated an area Europe is now,
 with its welter of different languages and cultures. Remember, however,
 that a great deal of archeology has been done on the late prehistory of
 Europe, and very little on that of further Asia and Africa. If we knew
-as much about these areas as we do of Europe, I expect we’d find them
+as much about these areas as we do of Europe, I expect we�d find them
 just as complicated.
 
 This much is clear for Europe, as far as the spread of the
@@ -4329,21 +4329,21 @@ in western Asia. I do not, of course, mean that there were traveling
 salesmen who carried these ideas and things to Europe with a commercial
 gleam in their eyes. The process took time, and the ideas and things
 must have been passed on from one group of people to the next. There
-was also some actual movement of peoples, but we don’t know the size of
+was also some actual movement of peoples, but we don�t know the size of
 the groups that moved.
 
-The story of the “colonization” of Europe by the first farmers is
+The story of the �colonization� of Europe by the first farmers is
 thus one of (1) the movement from the eastern Mediterranean lands
 of some people who were farmers; (2) the spread of ideas and things
 beyond the Near East itself and beyond the paths along which the
-“colonists” moved; and (3) the adaptations of the ideas and things
-by the indigenous “Forest folk”, about whose “receptiveness” Professor
+�colonists� moved; and (3) the adaptations of the ideas and things
+by the indigenous �Forest folk�, about whose �receptiveness� Professor
 Mathiassen speaks (p. 97). It is important to note that the resulting
 cultures in the new European environment were European, not Near
-Eastern. The late Professor Childe remarked that “the peoples of the
+Eastern. The late Professor Childe remarked that �the peoples of the
 West were not slavish imitators; they adapted the gifts from the East
 ... into a new and organic whole capable of developing on its own
-original lines.”
+original lines.�
 
 
 THE WAYS TO EUROPE
@@ -4389,19 +4389,19 @@ Hill, the earliest known trace of village-farming communities in
 England, is about 2500 B.C. I would expect about 5500 B.C. to be a
 safe date to give for the well-developed early village communities of
 Syro-Cilicia. We suspect that the spread throughout Europe did not
-proceed at an even rate. Professor Piggott writes that “at a date
+proceed at an even rate. Professor Piggott writes that �at a date
 probably about 2600 B.C., simple agricultural communities were being
 established in Spain and southern France, and from the latter region a
 spread northwards can be traced ... from points on the French seaboard
 of the [English] Channel ... there were emigrations of a certain number
 of these tribes by boat, across to the chalk lands of Wessex and Sussex
 [in England], probably not more than three or four generations later
-than the formation of the south French colonies.”
+than the formation of the south French colonies.�
 
 New radiocarbon determinations are becoming available all the
 time--already several suggest that the food-producing way of life
 had reached the lower Rhine and Holland by 4000 B.C. But not all
-prehistorians accept these “dates,” so I do not show them on my map
+prehistorians accept these �dates,� so I do not show them on my map
 (p. 139).
 
 
@@ -4427,7 +4427,7 @@ concentric sets of banks and ditches. Traces of oblong timber houses
 have been found, but not within the enclosures. The second type of
 structure is mine-shafts, dug down into the chalk beds where good
 flint for the making of axes or hoes could be found. The third type
-of structure is long simple mounds or “unchambered barrows,” in one
+of structure is long simple mounds or �unchambered barrows,� in one
 end of which burials were made. It has been commonly believed that the
 Windmill Hill assemblage belonged entirely to the cultural tradition
 which moved up through France to the Channel. Professor Piggott is now
@@ -4443,12 +4443,12 @@ consists mainly of tombs and the contents of tombs, with only very
 rare settlement sites. The tombs were of some size and received the
 bodies of many people. The tombs themselves were built of stone, heaped
 over with earth; the stones enclosed a passage to a central chamber
-(“passage graves”), or to a simple long gallery, along the sides of
-which the bodies were laid (“gallery graves”). The general type of
-construction is called “megalithic” (= great stone), and the whole
+(�passage graves�), or to a simple long gallery, along the sides of
+which the bodies were laid (�gallery graves�). The general type of
+construction is called �megalithic� (= great stone), and the whole
 earth-mounded structure is often called a _barrow_. Since many have
-proper chambers, in one sense or another, we used the term “unchambered
-barrow” above to distinguish those of the Windmill Hill type from these
+proper chambers, in one sense or another, we used the term �unchambered
+barrow� above to distinguish those of the Windmill Hill type from these
 megalithic structures. There is some evidence for sacrifice, libations,
 and ceremonial fires, and it is clear that some form of community
 ritual was focused on the megalithic tombs.
@@ -4466,7 +4466,7 @@ The third early British group of antiquities of this general time
 It is not so certain that the people who made this assemblage, called
 Peterborough, were actually farmers. While they may on occasion have
 practiced a simple agriculture, many items of their assemblage link
-them closely with that of the “Forest folk” of earlier times in
+them closely with that of the �Forest folk� of earlier times in
 England and in the Baltic countries. Their pottery is decorated with
 impressions of cords and is quite different from that of Windmill Hill
 and the megalithic builders. In addition, the distribution of their
@@ -4479,7 +4479,7 @@ to acquire the raw material for stone axes.
 
 A probably slightly later culture, whose traces are best known from
 Skara Brae on Orkney, also had its roots in those cultures of the
-Baltic area which fused out of the meeting of the “Forest folk” and
+Baltic area which fused out of the meeting of the �Forest folk� and
 the peoples who took the eastern way into Europe. Skara Brae is very
 well preserved, having been built of thin stone slabs about which
 dune-sand drifted after the village died. The individual houses, the
@@ -4498,14 +4498,14 @@ details which I have omitted in order to shorten the story.
 
 I believe some of the difficulty we have in understanding the
 establishment of the first farming communities in Europe is with
-the word “colonization.” We have a natural tendency to think of
-“colonization” as it has happened within the last few centuries. In the
+the word �colonization.� We have a natural tendency to think of
+�colonization� as it has happened within the last few centuries. In the
 case of the colonization of the Americas, for example, the colonists
 came relatively quickly, and in increasingly vast numbers. They had
 vastly superior technical, political, and war-making skills, compared
 with those of the Indians. There was not much mixing with the Indians.
 The case in Europe five or six thousand years ago must have been very
-different. I wonder if it is even proper to call people “colonists”
+different. I wonder if it is even proper to call people �colonists�
 who move some miles to a new region, settle down and farm it for some
 years, then move on again, generation after generation? The ideas and
 the things which these new people carried were only _potentially_
@@ -4521,12 +4521,12 @@ migrants were moving by boat, long distances may have been covered in
 a short time. Remember, however, we seem to have about three thousand
 years between the early Syro-Cilician villages and Windmill Hill.
 
-Let me repeat Professor Childe again. “The peoples of the West were
+Let me repeat Professor Childe again. �The peoples of the West were
 not slavish imitators: they adapted the gifts from the East ... into
 a new and organic whole capable of developing on its own original
-lines.” Childe is of course completely conscious of the fact that his
-“peoples of the West” were in part the descendants of migrants who came
-originally from the “East,” bringing their “gifts” with them. This
+lines.� Childe is of course completely conscious of the fact that his
+�peoples of the West� were in part the descendants of migrants who came
+originally from the �East,� bringing their �gifts� with them. This
 was the late prehistoric achievement of Europe--to take new ideas and
 things and some migrant peoples and, by mixing them with the old in its
 own environments, to forge a new and unique series of cultures.
@@ -4553,14 +4553,14 @@ things first happened there and also because I know it best.
 
 There is another interesting thing, too. We have seen that the first
 experiment in village-farming took place in the Near East. So did
-the first experiment in civilization. Both experiments “took.” The
+the first experiment in civilization. Both experiments �took.� The
 traditions we live by today are based, ultimately, on those ancient
 beginnings in food-production and civilization in the Near East.
 
 
-WHAT “CIVILIZATION” MEANS
+WHAT �CIVILIZATION� MEANS
 
-I shall not try to define “civilization” for you; rather, I shall
+I shall not try to define �civilization� for you; rather, I shall
 tell you what the word brings to my mind. To me civilization means
 urbanization: the fact that there are cities. It means a formal
 political set-up--that there are kings or governing bodies that the
@@ -4606,7 +4606,7 @@ of Mexico, the Mayas of Yucatan and Guatemala, and the Incas of the
 Andes were civilized.
 
 
-WHY DIDN’T CIVILIZATION COME TO ALL FOOD-PRODUCERS?
+WHY DIDN�T CIVILIZATION COME TO ALL FOOD-PRODUCERS?
 
 Once you have food-production, even at the well-advanced level of
 the village-farming community, what else has to happen before you
@@ -4625,13 +4625,13 @@ early civilization, is still an open and very interesting question.
 WHERE CIVILIZATION FIRST APPEARED IN THE NEAR EAST
 
 You remember that our earliest village-farming communities lay along
-the hilly flanks of a great “crescent.” (See map on p. 125.)
-Professor Breasted’s “fertile crescent” emphasized the rich river
+the hilly flanks of a great �crescent.� (See map on p. 125.)
+Professor Breasted�s �fertile crescent� emphasized the rich river
 valleys of the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers. Our hilly-flanks
 area of the crescent zone arches up from Egypt through Palestine and
 Syria, along southern Turkey into northern Iraq, and down along the
 southwestern fringe of Iran. The earliest food-producing villages we
-know already existed in this area by about 6750 B.C. (± 200 years).
+know already existed in this area by about 6750 B.C. (� 200 years).
 
 Now notice that this hilly-flanks zone does not include southern
 Mesopotamia, the alluvial land of the lower Tigris and Euphrates in
@@ -4639,7 +4639,7 @@ Iraq, or the Nile Valley proper. The earliest known villages of classic
 Mesopotamia and Egypt seem to appear fifteen hundred or more years
 after those of the hilly-flanks zone. For example, the early Fayum
 village which lies near a lake west of the Nile Valley proper (see p.
-135) has a radiocarbon date of 4275 B.C. ± 320 years. It was in the
+135) has a radiocarbon date of 4275 B.C. � 320 years. It was in the
 river lands, however, that the immediate beginnings of civilization
 were made.
 
@@ -4657,8 +4657,8 @@ THE HILLY-FLANKS ZONE VERSUS THE RIVER LANDS
 
 Why did these two civilizations spring up in these two river
 lands which apparently were not even part of the area where the
-village-farming community began? Why didn’t we have the first
-civilizations in Palestine, Syria, north Iraq, or Iran, where we’re
+village-farming community began? Why didn�t we have the first
+civilizations in Palestine, Syria, north Iraq, or Iran, where we�re
 sure food-production had had a long time to develop? I think the
 probable answer gives a clue to the ways in which civilization began in
 Egypt and Mesopotamia.
@@ -4669,7 +4669,7 @@ and Syria. There are pleasant mountain slopes, streams running out to
 the sea, and rain, at least in the winter months. The rain belt and the
 foothills of the Turkish mountains also extend to northern Iraq and on
 to the Iranian plateau. The Iranian plateau has its mountain valleys,
-streams, and some rain. These hilly flanks of the “crescent,” through
+streams, and some rain. These hilly flanks of the �crescent,� through
 most of its arc, are almost made-to-order for beginning farmers. The
 grassy slopes of the higher hills would be pasture for their herds
 and flocks. As soon as the earliest experiments with agriculture and
@@ -4720,10 +4720,10 @@ Obviously, we can no longer find the first dikes or reservoirs of
 the Nile Valley, or the first canals or ditches of Mesopotamia. The
 same land has been lived on far too long for any traces of the first
 attempts to be left; or, especially in Egypt, it has been covered by
-the yearly deposits of silt, dropped by the river floods. But we’re
+the yearly deposits of silt, dropped by the river floods. But we�re
 pretty sure the first food-producers of Egypt and southern Mesopotamia
 must have made such dikes, canals, and ditches. In the first place,
-there can’t have been enough rain for them to grow things otherwise.
+there can�t have been enough rain for them to grow things otherwise.
 In the second place, the patterns for such projects seem to have been
 pretty well set by historic times.
 
@@ -4733,10 +4733,10 @@ CONTROL OF THE RIVERS THE BUSINESS OF EVERYONE
 Here, then, is a _part_ of the reason why civilization grew in Egypt
 and Mesopotamia first--not in Palestine, Syria, or Iran. In the latter
 areas, people could manage to produce their food as individuals. It
-wasn’t too hard; there were rain and some streams, and good pasturage
+wasn�t too hard; there were rain and some streams, and good pasturage
 for the animals even if a crop or two went wrong. In Egypt and
 Mesopotamia, people had to put in a much greater amount of work, and
-this work couldn’t be individual work. Whole villages or groups of
+this work couldn�t be individual work. Whole villages or groups of
 people had to turn out to fix dikes or dig ditches. The dikes had to be
 repaired and the ditches carefully cleared of silt each year, or they
 would become useless.
@@ -4745,7 +4745,7 @@ There also had to be hard and fast rules. The person who lived nearest
 the ditch or the reservoir must not be allowed to take all the water
 and leave none for his neighbors. It was not only a business of
 learning to control the rivers and of making their waters do the
-farmer’s work. It also meant controlling men. But once these men had
+farmer�s work. It also meant controlling men. But once these men had
 managed both kinds of controls, what a wonderful yield they had! The
 soil was already fertile, and the silt which came in the floods and
 ditches kept adding fertile soil.
@@ -4756,7 +4756,7 @@ THE GERM OF CIVILIZATION IN EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA
 This learning to work together for the common good was the real germ of
 the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian civilizations. The bare elements of
 civilization were already there: the need for a governing hand and for
-laws to see that the communities’ work was done and that the water was
+laws to see that the communities� work was done and that the water was
 justly shared. You may object that there is a sort of chicken and egg
 paradox in this idea. How could the people set up the rules until they
 had managed to get a way to live, and how could they manage to get a
@@ -4781,12 +4781,12 @@ My explanation has been pointed particularly at Egypt and Mesopotamia.
 I have already told you that the irrigation and water-control part of
 it does not apply to the development of the Aztecs or the Mayas, or
 perhaps anybody else. But I think that a fair part of the story of
-Egypt and Mesopotamia must be as I’ve just told you.
+Egypt and Mesopotamia must be as I�ve just told you.
 
 I am particularly anxious that you do _not_ understand me to mean that
 irrigation _caused_ civilization. I am sure it was not that simple at
 all. For, in fact, a complex and highly engineered irrigation system
-proper did not come until later times. Let’s say rather that the simple
+proper did not come until later times. Let�s say rather that the simple
 beginnings of irrigation allowed and in fact encouraged a great number
 of things in the technological, political, social, and moral realms of
 culture. We do not yet understand what all these things were or how
@@ -4842,7 +4842,7 @@ the mound which later became the holy Sumerian city of Eridu, Iraqi
 archeologists uncovered a handsome painted pottery. Pottery of the same
 type had been noticed earlier by German archeologists on the surface
 of a small mound, awash in the spring floods, near the remains of the
-Biblical city of Erich (Sumerian = Uruk; Arabic = Warka). This “Eridu”
+Biblical city of Erich (Sumerian = Uruk; Arabic = Warka). This �Eridu�
 pottery, which is about all we have of the assemblage of the people who
 once produced it, may be seen as a blend of the Samarran and Halafian
 painted pottery styles. This may over-simplify the case, but as yet we
@@ -4864,7 +4864,7 @@ seems to move into place before the Halaf manifestation is finished,
 and to blend with it. The Ubaidian assemblage in the south is by far
 the more spectacular. The development of the temple has been traced
 at Eridu from a simple little structure to a monumental building some
-62 feet long, with a pilaster-decorated façade and an altar in its
+62 feet long, with a pilaster-decorated fa�ade and an altar in its
 central chamber. There is painted Ubaidian pottery, but the style is
 hurried and somewhat careless and gives the _impression_ of having been
 a cheap mass-production means of decoration when compared with the
@@ -4879,7 +4879,7 @@ turtle-like faces are another item in the southern Ubaidian assemblage.
 
 There is a large Ubaid cemetery at Eridu, much of it still awaiting
 excavation. The few skeletons so far tentatively studied reveal a
-completely modern type of “Mediterraneanoid”; the individuals whom the
+completely modern type of �Mediterraneanoid�; the individuals whom the
 skeletons represent would undoubtedly blend perfectly into the modern
 population of southern Iraq. What the Ubaidian assemblage says to us is
 that these people had already adapted themselves and their culture to
@@ -4925,7 +4925,7 @@ woven stuffs must have been the mediums of exchange. Over what area did
 the trading net-work of Ubaid extend? We start with the idea that the
 Ubaidian assemblage is most richly developed in the south. We assume, I
 think, correctly, that it represents a cultural flowering of the south.
-On the basis of the pottery of the still elusive “Eridu” immigrants
+On the basis of the pottery of the still elusive �Eridu� immigrants
 who had first followed the rivers into alluvial Mesopotamia, we get
 the notion that the characteristic painted pottery style of Ubaid
 was developed in the southland. If this reconstruction is correct
@@ -4935,7 +4935,7 @@ assemblage of (and from the southern point of view, _fairly_ pure)
 Ubaidian material in northern Iraq. The pottery appears all along the
 Iranian flanks, even well east of the head of the Persian Gulf, and
 ends in a later and spectacular flourish in an extremely handsome
-painted style called the “Susa” style. Ubaidian pottery has been noted
+painted style called the �Susa� style. Ubaidian pottery has been noted
 up the valleys of both of the great rivers, well north of the Iraqi
 and Syrian borders on the southern flanks of the Anatolian plateau.
 It reaches the Mediterranean Sea and the valley of the Orontes in
@@ -4965,10 +4965,10 @@ Mesopotamia.
 
 Next, much to our annoyance, we have what is almost a temporary
 black-out. According to the system of terminology I favor, our next
-“assemblage” after that of Ubaid is called the _Warka_ phase, from
+�assemblage� after that of Ubaid is called the _Warka_ phase, from
 the Arabic name for the site of Uruk or Erich. We know it only from
 six or seven levels in a narrow test-pit at Warka, and from an even
-smaller hole at another site. This “assemblage,” so far, is known only
+smaller hole at another site. This �assemblage,� so far, is known only
 by its pottery, some of which still bears Ubaidian style painting. The
 characteristic Warkan pottery is unpainted, with smoothed red or gray
 surfaces and peculiar shapes. Unquestionably, there must be a great
@@ -4979,7 +4979,7 @@ have to excavate it!
 THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION
 
 After our exasperation with the almost unknown Warka interlude,
-following the brilliant “false dawn” of Ubaid, we move next to an
+following the brilliant �false dawn� of Ubaid, we move next to an
 assemblage which yields traces of a preponderance of those elements
 which we noted (p. 144) as meaning civilization. This assemblage
 is that called _Proto-Literate_; it already contains writing. On
@@ -4988,8 +4988,8 @@ history--and no longer prehistory--the assemblage is named for the
 historical implications of its content, and no longer after the name of
 the site where it was first found. Since some of the older books used
 site-names for this assemblage, I will tell you that the Proto-Literate
-includes the latter half of what used to be called the “Uruk period”
-_plus_ all of what used to be called the “Jemdet Nasr period.” It shows
+includes the latter half of what used to be called the �Uruk period�
+_plus_ all of what used to be called the �Jemdet Nasr period.� It shows
 a consistent development from beginning to end.
 
 I shall, in fact, leave much of the description and the historic
@@ -5033,18 +5033,18 @@ mental block seems to have been removed.
 
 Clay tablets bearing pictographic signs are the Proto-Literate
 forerunners of cuneiform writing. The earliest examples are not well
-understood but they seem to be “devices for making accounts and
-for remembering accounts.” Different from the later case in Egypt,
+understood but they seem to be �devices for making accounts and
+for remembering accounts.� Different from the later case in Egypt,
 where writing appears fully formed in the earliest examples, the
 development from simple pictographic signs to proper cuneiform writing
 may be traced, step by step, in Mesopotamia. It is most probable
 that the development of writing was connected with the temple and
-the need for keeping account of the temple’s possessions. Professor
+the need for keeping account of the temple�s possessions. Professor
 Jacobsen sees writing as a means for overcoming space, time, and the
-increasing complications of human affairs: “Literacy, which began
+increasing complications of human affairs: �Literacy, which began
 with ... civilization, enhanced mightily those very tendencies in its
 development which characterize it as a civilization and mark it off as
-such from other types of culture.”
+such from other types of culture.�
 
 [Illustration: RELIEF ON A PROTO-LITERATE STONE VASE, WARKA
 
@@ -5098,7 +5098,7 @@ civilized way of life.
 
 I suppose you could say that the difference in the approach is that as
 a prehistorian I have been looking forward or upward in time, while the
-historians look backward to glimpse what I’ve been describing here. My
+historians look backward to glimpse what I�ve been describing here. My
 base-line was half a million years ago with a being who had little more
 than the capacity to make tools and fire to distinguish him from the
 animals about him. Thus my point of view and that of the conventional
@@ -5114,17 +5114,17 @@ End of PREHISTORY
 [Illustration]
 
 
-You’ll doubtless easily recall your general course in ancient history:
+You�ll doubtless easily recall your general course in ancient history:
 how the Sumerian dynasties of Mesopotamia were supplanted by those of
 Babylonia, how the Hittite kingdom appeared in Anatolian Turkey, and
 about the three great phases of Egyptian history. The literate kingdom
 of Crete arose, and by 1500 B.C. there were splendid fortified Mycenean
 towns on the mainland of Greece. This was the time--about the whole
 eastern end of the Mediterranean--of what Professor Breasted called the
-“first great internationalism,” with flourishing trade, international
+�first great internationalism,� with flourishing trade, international
 treaties, and royal marriages between Egyptians, Babylonians, and
-Hittites. By 1200 B.C., the whole thing had fragmented: “the peoples of
-the sea were restless in their isles,” and the great ancient centers in
+Hittites. By 1200 B.C., the whole thing had fragmented: �the peoples of
+the sea were restless in their isles,� and the great ancient centers in
 Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia were eclipsed. Numerous smaller states
 arose--Assyria, Phoenicia, Israel--and the Trojan war was fought.
 Finally Assyria became the paramount power of all the Near East,
@@ -5135,7 +5135,7 @@ but casting them with its own tradition into a new mould, arose in
 mainland Greece.
 
 I once shocked my Classical colleagues to the core by referring to
-Greece as “a second degree derived civilization,” but there is much
+Greece as �a second degree derived civilization,� but there is much
 truth in this. The principles of bronze- and then of iron-working, of
 the alphabet, and of many other elements in Greek culture were borrowed
 from western Asia. Our debt to the Greeks is too well known for me even
@@ -5146,7 +5146,7 @@ Greece fell in its turn to Rome, and in 55 B.C. Caesar invaded Britain.
 I last spoke of Britain on page 142; I had chosen it as my single
 example for telling you something of how the earliest farming
 communities were established in Europe. Now I will continue with
-Britain’s later prehistory, so you may sense something of the end of
+Britain�s later prehistory, so you may sense something of the end of
 prehistory itself. Remember that Britain is simply a single example
 we select; the same thing could be done for all the other countries
 of Europe, and will be possible also, some day, for further Asia and
@@ -5186,20 +5186,20 @@ few Battle-axe folk elements, including, in fact, stone battle-axes,
 reached England with the earliest Beaker folk,[6] coming from the
 Rhineland.
 
-  [6] The British authors use the term “Beaker folk” to mean both
+  [6] The British authors use the term �Beaker folk� to mean both
       archeological assemblage and human physical type. They speak
-      of a “... tall, heavy-boned, rugged, and round-headed” strain
+      of a �... tall, heavy-boned, rugged, and round-headed� strain
       which they take to have developed, apparently in the Rhineland,
       by a mixture of the original (Spanish?) beaker-makers and
       the northeast European battle-axe makers. However, since the
       science of physical anthropology is very much in flux at the
       moment, and since I am not able to assess the evidence for these
-      physical types, I _do not_ use the term “folk” in this book with
+      physical types, I _do not_ use the term �folk� in this book with
       its usual meaning of standardized physical type. When I use
-      “folk” here, I mean simply _the makers of a given archeological
+      �folk� here, I mean simply _the makers of a given archeological
       assemblage_. The difficulty only comes when assemblages are
       named for some item in them; it is too clumsy to make an
-      adjective of the item and refer to a “beakerian” assemblage.
+      adjective of the item and refer to a �beakerian� assemblage.
 
 The Beaker folk settled earliest in the agriculturally fertile south
 and east. There seem to have been several phases of Beaker folk
@@ -5211,7 +5211,7 @@ folk are known. They buried their dead singly, sometimes in conspicuous
 individual barrows with the dead warrior in his full trappings. The
 spectacular element in the assemblage of the Beaker folk is a group
 of large circular monuments with ditches and with uprights of wood or
-stone. These “henges” became truly monumental several hundred years
+stone. These �henges� became truly monumental several hundred years
 later; while they were occasionally dedicated with a burial, they were
 not primarily tombs. The effect of the invasion of the Beaker folk
 seems to cut across the whole fabric of life in Britain.
@@ -5221,7 +5221,7 @@ seems to cut across the whole fabric of life in Britain.
 There was, however, a second major element in British life at this
 time. It shows itself in the less well understood traces of a group
 again called after one of the items in their catalogue, the Food-vessel
-folk. There are many burials in these “food-vessel” pots in northern
+folk. There are many burials in these �food-vessel� pots in northern
 England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the pottery itself seems to
 link back to that of the Peterborough assemblage. Like the earlier
 Peterborough people in the highland zone before them, the makers of
@@ -5238,8 +5238,8 @@ MORE INVASIONS
 About 1500 B.C., the situation became further complicated by the
 arrival of new people in the region of southern England anciently
 called Wessex. The traces suggest the Brittany coast of France as a
-source, and the people seem at first to have been a small but “heroic”
-group of aristocrats. Their “heroes” are buried with wealth and
+source, and the people seem at first to have been a small but �heroic�
+group of aristocrats. Their �heroes� are buried with wealth and
 ceremony, surrounded by their axes and daggers of bronze, their gold
 ornaments, and amber and jet beads. These rich finds show that the
 trade-linkage these warriors patronized spread from the Baltic sources
@@ -5265,10 +5265,10 @@ which must have been necessary before such a great monument could have
 been built.
 
 
-“THIS ENGLAND”
+�THIS ENGLAND�
 
 The range from 1900 to about 1400 B.C. includes the time of development
-of the archeological features usually called the “Early Bronze Age”
+of the archeological features usually called the �Early Bronze Age�
 in Britain. In fact, traces of the Wessex warriors persisted down to
 about 1200 B.C. The main regions of the island were populated, and the
 adjustments to the highland and lowland zones were distinct and well
@@ -5279,7 +5279,7 @@ trading role, separated from the European continent but conveniently
 adjacent to it. The tin of Cornwall--so important in the production
 of good bronze--as well as the copper of the west and of Ireland,
 taken with the gold of Ireland and the general excellence of Irish
-metal work, assured Britain a trader’s place in the then known world.
+metal work, assured Britain a trader�s place in the then known world.
 Contacts with the eastern Mediterranean may have been by sea, with
 Cornish tin as the attraction, or may have been made by the Food-vessel
 middlemen on their trips to the Baltic coast. There they would have
@@ -5292,9 +5292,9 @@ relative isolation gave some peace and also gave time for a leveling
 and further fusion of culture. The separate cultural traditions began
 to have more in common. The growing of barley, the herding of sheep and
 cattle, and the production of woolen garments were already features
-common to all Britain’s inhabitants save a few in the remote highlands,
+common to all Britain�s inhabitants save a few in the remote highlands,
 the far north, and the distant islands not yet fully touched by
-food-production. The “personality of Britain” was being formed.
+food-production. The �personality of Britain� was being formed.
 
 
 CREMATION BURIALS BEGIN
@@ -5325,9 +5325,9 @@ which we shall mention below.
 
 The British cremation-burial-in-urns folk survived a long time in the
 highland zone. In the general British scheme, they make up what is
-called the “Middle Bronze Age,” but in the highland zone they last
+called the �Middle Bronze Age,� but in the highland zone they last
 until after 900 B.C. and are considered to be a specialized highland
-“Late Bronze Age.” In the highland zone, these later cremation-burial
+�Late Bronze Age.� In the highland zone, these later cremation-burial
 folk seem to have continued the older Food-vessel tradition of being
 middlemen in the metal market.
 
@@ -5379,12 +5379,12 @@ to get a picture of estate or tribal boundaries which included village
 communities; we find a variety of tools in bronze, and even whetstones
 which show that iron has been honed on them (although the scarce iron
 has not been found). Let me give you the picture in Professor S.
-Piggott’s words: “The ... Late Bronze Age of southern England was but
+Piggott�s words: �The ... Late Bronze Age of southern England was but
 the forerunner of the earliest Iron Age in the same region, not only in
 the techniques of agriculture, but almost certainly in terms of ethnic
 kinship ... we can with some assurance talk of the Celts ... the great
 early Celtic expansion of the Continent is recognized to be that of the
-Urnfield people.”
+Urnfield people.�
 
 Thus, certainly by 500 B.C., there were people in Britain, some of
 whose descendants we may recognize today in name or language in remote
@@ -5399,11 +5399,11 @@ efficient set of tools than does bronze. Iron tools seem first to
 have been made in quantity in Hittite Anatolia about 1500 B.C. In
 continental Europe, the earliest, so-called Hallstatt, iron-using
 cultures appeared in Germany soon after 750 B.C. Somewhat later,
-Greek and especially Etruscan exports of _objets d’art_--which moved
+Greek and especially Etruscan exports of _objets d�art_--which moved
 with a flourishing trans-Alpine wine trade--influenced the Hallstatt
 iron-working tradition. Still later new classical motifs, together with
 older Hallstatt, oriental, and northern nomad motifs, gave rise to a
-new style in metal decoration which characterizes the so-called La Tène
+new style in metal decoration which characterizes the so-called La T�ne
 phase.
 
 A few iron users reached Britain a little before 400 B.C. Not long
@@ -5422,7 +5422,7 @@ HILL-FORTS AND FARMS
 The earliest iron-users seem to have entrenched themselves temporarily
 within hill-top forts, mainly in the south. Gradually, they moved
 inland, establishing _individual_ farm sites with extensive systems
-of rectangular fields. We recognize these fields by the “lynchets” or
+of rectangular fields. We recognize these fields by the �lynchets� or
 lines of soil-creep which plowing left on the slopes of hills. New
 crops appeared; there were now bread wheat, oats, and rye, as well as
 barley.
@@ -5434,7 +5434,7 @@ various outbuildings and pits for the storage of grain. Weaving was
 done on the farm, but not blacksmithing, which must have been a
 specialized trade. Save for the lack of firearms, the place might
 almost be taken for a farmstead on the American frontier in the early
-1800’s.
+1800�s.
 
 Toward 250 B.C. there seems to have been a hasty attempt to repair the
 hill-forts and to build new ones, evidently in response to signs of
@@ -5446,9 +5446,9 @@ THE SECOND PHASE
 Perhaps the hill-forts were not entirely effective or perhaps a
 compromise was reached. In any case, the newcomers from the Marne
 district did establish themselves, first in the southeast and then to
-the north and west. They brought iron with decoration of the La Tène
+the north and west. They brought iron with decoration of the La T�ne
 type and also the two-wheeled chariot. Like the Wessex warriors of
-over a thousand years earlier, they made “heroes’” graves, with their
+over a thousand years earlier, they made �heroes�� graves, with their
 warriors buried in the war-chariots and dressed in full trappings.
 
 [Illustration: CELTIC BUCKLE]
@@ -5457,7 +5457,7 @@ The metal work of these Marnian newcomers is excellent. The peculiar
 Celtic art style, based originally on the classic tendril motif,
 is colorful and virile, and fits with Greek and Roman descriptions
 of Celtic love of color in dress. There is a strong trace of these
-newcomers northward in Yorkshire, linked by Ptolemy’s description to
+newcomers northward in Yorkshire, linked by Ptolemy�s description to
 the Parisii, doubtless part of the Celtic tribe which originally gave
 its name to Paris on the Seine. Near Glastonbury, in Somerset, two
 villages in swamps have been excavated. They seem to date toward the
@@ -5469,7 +5469,7 @@ villagers.
 
 In Scotland, which yields its first iron tools at a date of about 100
 B.C., and in northern Ireland even slightly earlier, the effects of the
-two phases of newcomers tend especially to blend. Hill-forts, “brochs”
+two phases of newcomers tend especially to blend. Hill-forts, �brochs�
 (stone-built round towers) and a variety of other strange structures
 seem to appear as the new ideas develop in the comparative isolation of
 northern Britain.
@@ -5493,27 +5493,27 @@ at last, we can even begin to speak of dynasties and individuals.
 Some time before 55 B.C., the Catuvellauni, originally from the Marne
 district in France, had possessed themselves of a large part of
 southeastern England. They evidently sailed up the Thames and built a
-town of over a hundred acres in area. Here ruled Cassivellaunus, “the
-first man in England whose name we know,” and whose town Caesar sacked.
+town of over a hundred acres in area. Here ruled Cassivellaunus, �the
+first man in England whose name we know,� and whose town Caesar sacked.
 The town sprang up elsewhere again, however.
 
 
 THE END OF PREHISTORY
 
 Prehistory, strictly speaking, is now over in southern Britain.
-Claudius’ effective invasion took place in 43 A.D.; by 83 A.D., a raid
+Claudius� effective invasion took place in 43 A.D.; by 83 A.D., a raid
 had been made as far north as Aberdeen in Scotland. But by 127 A.D.,
 Hadrian had completed his wall from the Solway to the Tyne, and the
 Romans settled behind it. In Scotland, Romanization can have affected
-the countryside very little. Professor Piggott adds that “... it is
+the countryside very little. Professor Piggott adds that �... it is
 when the pressure of Romanization is relaxed by the break-up of the
 Dark Ages that we see again the Celtic metal-smiths handling their
 material with the same consummate skill as they had before the Roman
 Conquest, and with traditional styles that had not even then forgotten
-their Marnian and Belgic heritage.”
+their Marnian and Belgic heritage.�
 
 In fact, many centuries go by, in Britain as well as in the rest of
-Europe, before the archeologist’s task is complete and the historian on
+Europe, before the archeologist�s task is complete and the historian on
 his own is able to describe the ways of men in the past.
 
 
@@ -5524,7 +5524,7 @@ you will have noticed how often I had to refer to the European
 continent itself. Britain, beyond the English Channel for all of her
 later prehistory, had a much simpler course of events than did most of
 the rest of Europe in later prehistoric times. This holds, in spite
-of all the “invasions” and “reverberations” from the continent. Most
+of all the �invasions� and �reverberations� from the continent. Most
 of Europe was the scene of an even more complicated ebb and flow of
 cultural change, save in some of its more remote mountain valleys and
 peninsulas.
@@ -5536,7 +5536,7 @@ accounts and some good general accounts of part of the range from about
 3000 B.C. to A.D. 1. I suspect that the difficulty of making a good
 book that covers all of its later prehistory is another aspect of what
 makes Europe so very complicated a continent today. The prehistoric
-foundations for Europe’s very complicated set of civilizations,
+foundations for Europe�s very complicated set of civilizations,
 cultures, and sub-cultures--which begin to appear as history
 proceeds--were in themselves very complicated.
 
@@ -5552,8 +5552,8 @@ of their journeys. But by the same token, they had had time en route to
 take on their characteristic European aspects.
 
 Some time ago, Sir Cyril Fox wrote a famous book called _The
-Personality of Britain_, sub-titled “Its Influence on Inhabitant and
-Invader in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times.” We have not gone
+Personality of Britain_, sub-titled �Its Influence on Inhabitant and
+Invader in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times.� We have not gone
 into the post-Roman early historic period here; there are still the
 Anglo-Saxons and Normans to account for as well as the effects of
 the Romans. But what I have tried to do was to begin the story of
@@ -5570,7 +5570,7 @@ Summary
 
 
 In the pages you have read so far, you have been brought through the
-earliest 99 per cent of the story of man’s life on this planet. I have
+earliest 99 per cent of the story of man�s life on this planet. I have
 left only 1 per cent of the story for the historians to tell.
 
 
@@ -5601,7 +5601,7 @@ But I think there may have been a few. Certainly the pace of the
 first act accelerated with the swing from simple gathering to more
 intensified collecting. The great cave art of France and Spain was
 probably an expression of a climax. Even the ideas of burying the dead
-and of the “Venus” figurines must also point to levels of human thought
+and of the �Venus� figurines must also point to levels of human thought
 and activity that were over and above pure food-getting.
 
 
@@ -5629,7 +5629,7 @@ five thousand years after the second act began. But it could never have
 happened in the first act at all.
 
 There is another curious thing about the first act. Many of the players
-didn’t know it was over and they kept on with their roles long after
+didn�t know it was over and they kept on with their roles long after
 the second act had begun. On the edges of the stage there are today
 some players who are still going on with the first act. The Eskimos,
 and the native Australians, and certain tribes in the Amazon jungle are
@@ -5680,20 +5680,20 @@ act may have lessons for us and give depth to our thinking. I know
 there are at least _some_ lessons, even in the present incomplete
 state of our knowledge. The players who began the second act--that of
 food-production--separately, in different parts of the world, were not
-all of one “pure race” nor did they have “pure” cultural traditions.
+all of one �pure race� nor did they have �pure� cultural traditions.
 Some apparently quite mixed Mediterraneans got off to the first start
 on the second act and brought it to its first two climaxes as well.
 Peoples of quite different physical type achieved the first climaxes in
 China and in the New World.
 
 In our British example of how the late prehistory of Europe worked, we
-listed a continuous series of “invasions” and “reverberations.” After
+listed a continuous series of �invasions� and �reverberations.� After
 each of these came fusion. Even though the Channel protected Britain
 from some of the extreme complications of the mixture and fusion of
 continental Europe, you can see how silly it would be to refer to a
-“pure” British race or a “pure” British culture. We speak of the United
-States as a “melting pot.” But this is nothing new. Actually, Britain
-and all the rest of the world have been “melting pots” at one time or
+�pure� British race or a �pure� British culture. We speak of the United
+States as a �melting pot.� But this is nothing new. Actually, Britain
+and all the rest of the world have been �melting pots� at one time or
 another.
 
 By the time the written records of Mesopotamia and Egypt begin to turn
@@ -5703,12 +5703,12 @@ itself, we are thrown back on prehistoric archeology. And this is as
 true for China, India, Middle America, and the Andes, as it is for the
 Near East.
 
-There are lessons to be learned from all of man’s past, not simply
+There are lessons to be learned from all of man�s past, not simply
 lessons of how to fight battles or win peace conferences, but of how
 human society evolves from one stage to another. Many of these lessons
 can only be looked for in the prehistoric past. So far, we have only
 made a beginning. There is much still to do, and many gaps in the story
-are yet to be filled. The prehistorian’s job is to find the evidence,
+are yet to be filled. The prehistorian�s job is to find the evidence,
 to fill the gaps, and to discover the lessons men have learned in the
 past. As I see it, this is not only an exciting but a very practical
 goal for which to strive.
@@ -5745,7 +5745,7 @@ paperbound books.)
 
 GEOCHRONOLOGY AND THE ICE AGE
 
-(Two general books. Some Pleistocene geologists disagree with Zeuner’s
+(Two general books. Some Pleistocene geologists disagree with Zeuner�s
 interpretation of the dating evidence, but their points of view appear
 in professional journals, in articles too cumbersome to list here.)
 
@@ -5815,7 +5815,7 @@ GENERAL PREHISTORY
         Press.
 
   Movius, Hallam L., Jr.
-    “Old World Prehistory: Paleolithic” in _Anthropology Today_.
+    �Old World Prehistory: Paleolithic� in _Anthropology Today_.
         Kroeber, A. L., ed. 1953. University of Chicago Press.
 
   Oakley, Kenneth P.
@@ -5826,7 +5826,7 @@ GENERAL PREHISTORY
     _British Prehistory._ 1949. Oxford University Press.
 
   Pittioni, Richard
-    _Die Urgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der Europäischen Kultur._
+    _Die Urgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der Europ�ischen Kultur._
         1949. Deuticke. (A single book which does attempt to cover the
         whole range of European prehistory to ca. 1 A.D.)
 
@@ -5834,7 +5834,7 @@ GENERAL PREHISTORY
 THE NEAR EAST
 
   Adams, Robert M.
-    “Developmental Stages in Ancient Mesopotamia,” _in_ Steward,
+    �Developmental Stages in Ancient Mesopotamia,� _in_ Steward,
         Julian, _et al_, _Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative
         Study_. 1955. Pan American Union.
 
@@ -6000,7 +6000,7 @@ Index
 
   Bolas, 54
 
-  Bordes, François, 62
+  Bordes, Fran�ois, 62
 
   Borer, 77
 
@@ -6028,7 +6028,7 @@ Index
     killed by stampede, 86
 
   Burials, 66, 86;
-    in “henges,” 164;
+    in �henges,� 164;
     in urns, 168
 
   Burins, 75
@@ -6085,7 +6085,7 @@ Index
 
   Combe Capelle, 30
 
-  Combe Capelle-Brünn group, 34
+  Combe Capelle-Br�nn group, 34
 
   Commont, Victor, 51
 
@@ -6097,7 +6097,7 @@ Index
 
   Corrals for cattle, 140
 
-  “Cradle of mankind,” 136
+  �Cradle of mankind,� 136
 
   Cremation, 167
 
@@ -6123,7 +6123,7 @@ Index
   Domestication, of animals, 100, 105, 107;
     of plants, 100
 
-  “Dragon teeth” fossils in China, 28
+  �Dragon teeth� fossils in China, 28
 
   Drill, 77
 
@@ -6176,9 +6176,9 @@ Index
   Fayum, 135;
     radiocarbon date, 146
 
-  “Fertile Crescent,” 107, 146
+  �Fertile Crescent,� 107, 146
 
-  Figurines, “Venus,” 84;
+  Figurines, �Venus,� 84;
     at Jarmo, 128;
     at Ubaid, 153
 
@@ -6197,7 +6197,7 @@ Index
 
   Flint industry, 127
 
-  Fontéchevade, 32, 56, 58
+  Font�chevade, 32, 56, 58
 
   Food-collecting, 104, 121;
     end of, 104
@@ -6223,7 +6223,7 @@ Index
 
   Food-vessel folk, 164
 
-  “Forest folk,” 97, 98, 104, 110
+  �Forest folk,� 97, 98, 104, 110
 
   Fox, Sir Cyril, 174
 
@@ -6379,7 +6379,7 @@ Index
 
   Land bridges in Mediterranean, 19
 
-  La Tène phase, 170
+  La T�ne phase, 170
 
   Laurel leaf point, 78, 89
 
@@ -6404,7 +6404,7 @@ Index
   Mammoth, 93;
     in cave art, 85
 
-  “Man-apes,” 26
+  �Man-apes,� 26
 
   Mango, 107
 
@@ -6435,7 +6435,7 @@ Index
 
   Microliths, 87;
     at Jarmo, 130;
-    “lunates,” 87;
+    �lunates,� 87;
     trapezoids, 87;
     triangles, 87
 
@@ -6443,7 +6443,7 @@ Index
 
   Mine-shafts, 140
 
-  M’lefaat, 126, 127
+  M�lefaat, 126, 127
 
   Mongoloids, 29, 90
 
@@ -6453,9 +6453,9 @@ Index
 
   Mount Carmel, 11, 33, 52, 59, 64, 69, 113, 114
 
-  “Mousterian man,” 64
+  �Mousterian man,� 64
 
-  “Mousterian” tools, 61, 62;
+  �Mousterian� tools, 61, 62;
     of Acheulean tradition, 62
 
   Movius, H. L., 47
@@ -6471,7 +6471,7 @@ Index
   Near East, beginnings of civilization in, 20, 144;
     cave sites, 58;
     climate in Ice Age, 99;
-    “Fertile Crescent,” 107, 146;
+    �Fertile Crescent,� 107, 146;
     food-production in, 99;
     Natufian assemblage in, 113-115;
     stone tools, 114
@@ -6539,7 +6539,7 @@ Index
 
   Pig, wild, 108
 
-  “Piltdown man,” 29
+  �Piltdown man,� 29
 
   Pins, 80
 
@@ -6578,7 +6578,7 @@ Index
 
   Race, 35;
     biological, 36;
-    “pure,” 16
+    �pure,� 16
 
   Radioactivity, 9, 10
 
@@ -6795,7 +6795,7 @@ Index
   Writing, 158;
     cuneiform, 158
 
-  Würm I glaciation, 58
+  W�rm I glaciation, 58
 
 
   Zebu cattle, domestication of, 107
@@ -6810,7 +6810,7 @@ Index
 
 
 
-Transcriber’s note:
+Transcriber�s note:
 
 Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
 predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not
diff --git a/ciphers/transposition_cipher_encrypt_decrypt_file.py b/ciphers/transposition_cipher_encrypt_decrypt_file.py
index 6296b1e6d..b9630243d 100644
--- a/ciphers/transposition_cipher_encrypt_decrypt_file.py
+++ b/ciphers/transposition_cipher_encrypt_decrypt_file.py
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ from . import transposition_cipher as trans_cipher
 
 
 def main() -> None:
-    input_file = "Prehistoric Men.txt"
-    output_file = "Output.txt"
+    input_file = "./prehistoric_men.txt"
+    output_file = "./Output.txt"
     key = int(input("Enter key: "))
     mode = input("Encrypt/Decrypt [e/d]: ")