The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2

By Warren K. Moorehead

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2

Author: Warren King Moorehead

Release date: August 1, 2024 [eBook #74170]

Language: English

Original publication: Boston: Houghton Mifflin company, 1910

Credits: Richard Tonsing, Peter Becker, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA, VOL. 1 OF 2 ***

THE STONE AGE IN
NORTH AMERICA

[Illustration:

_Colored plate of fine chipped implements. Materials: jasper,
carnelian, agate, obsidian, and chalcedony. These were collected in
the Willamette Valley, Oregon, and are selected as indicative of
aboriginal American art in flint-chipping. B. W. Arnold’s
collection, Albany, New York._
]

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA
AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE IMPLEMENTS, ORNAMENTS, WEAPONS,
UTENSILS, ETC., OF THE PREHISTORIC TRIBES OF NORTH AMERICA, WITH MORE
THAN THREE HUNDRED FULL-PAGE PLATES AND FOUR HUNDRED FIGURES
ILLUSTRATING OVER FOUR THOUSAND DIFFERENT OBJECTS

WARREN K. MOOREHEAD, A.M.

CURATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY, PHILLIPS ACADEMY,
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF INDIAN COMMISSIONERS, ETC.

IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. I

[Illustration: [Logo]]

BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
=The Riverside Press Cambridge=
1910

_Published December 1910_

PREFACE

Before one enters fully upon a discussion of ancient man’s handiwork,
some introductory explanation is necessary. This work is the result of
twenty-five years’ study of primitive man’s prehistoric implements,
weapons, and utensils found in America. During the past ten years I have
presented several attempts at classification of these various objects,
two of them being in book form. But my publications were incomplete and
unsatisfactory, although in a sense they prepared the way for “THE STONE
AGE.”

A classification of stone, bone, shell, clay, and copper implements in
the United States is a difficult and tedious task in itself. There were
different cultures, some of which are known, others but slightly known,
and it is quite likely that, as time passes, implements will be
discovered in such numbers as to justify the establishing of new types.
Therefore my work cannot be complete, although I have endeavored to
include in it all type-specimens brought to my notice.

The work has necessitated an extensive correspondence with museums,
scientific men, and private collectors throughout the United States,
much travel, and the reading of thousands of pages of reports, books,
and articles.

It is probable that some of the statements will be challenged, and if in
any of the conclusions I am in error, I court correction. All these
observations are based on the study of actual specimens or photographs
of them, on field-work, on published material, and on museum specimens.

After deliberation I concluded to describe the implements, ornaments,
and utensils of North America according to class or type rather than by
locality. The several scholars who had aided me in this work and to whom
I am under the greatest of obligations are therefore given credit in
their several places. This was a better plan, and all of my observations
are so grouped.

I am especially indebted to Mr. Charles E. Brown, Secretary and Curator
of the Wisconsin Archæological Society and at present Dean of the State
Historical Museum at Madison, Wisconsin; and to Professor Henry
Montgomery, Ph.D., Head Curator of the New Museum of the University of
Toronto, Ontario. Both of these gentlemen are co-laborers in the
preparation of the pages which follow; both have offered suggestions and
been of great assistance; both made thorough studies in their respective
regions. Mr. Brown’s papers in the _Wisconsin Archeologist_ and other
reports, and his studies in museums in the Northwest, have made him an
authority on copper and other forms of ancient objects. Professor
Montgomery has carried on investigations, extending through many years,
of the archæology of the Dakotas, Utah, and eastern and central Canada.

Readers will observe that I have embodied Mr. Brown’s papers in various
portions of “The Stone Age” according to the types under discussion, but
Professor Montgomery’s several papers are presented as geographical
treatises in Volume II, just before my own Conclusions.

Much credit is due to both of these scholars for their permission to
make use of previously published papers, and for hearty coöperation.

I am under obligations to the Wisconsin Archæological Society for the
loan of plates illustrating specimens in its collection, and to Mr.
George A. West, the authority on Wisconsin pipes, for the loan of
figures illustrating pipes from the Northwest; and, further, to Mr. West
for his kindness in reading my chapter on pipes and offering
suggestions. The Directors of the Milwaukee Public Museum have my thanks
for their generous action in making, especially for “The Stone Age,” a
series of plates illustrating type-specimens in copper on exhibition in
their collection. Dr. S. A. Barrett, Curator of Anthropology in the
Milwaukee Public Museum, also rendered me assistance.

Dr. George L. Collie, Curator of the Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin,
kindly made for me a number of plates of interesting copper objects,
striated axes, and other artifacts in his museum. He also furnished me
with descriptions, and permitted me to republish portions of his paper
entitled “Aboriginal Discrimination in the Selection of Material for
Tools,” printed in volume VII, number 3, of the _Wisconsin
Archeologist_. These and other gentlemen have been very kind to me and I
appreciate their coöperation. That “The Stone Age” may be a success is
largely due to the interest taken in it by my numerous correspondents.

The student who wishes to consider all the forms in a given region will
find it necessary to refer to the Index. Because of my method of
treatment, I was compelled to ignore geographical lines. Otherwise
endless repetition would result. The only exception to be noted was made
in favor of Professor Montgomery’s paper.

I am especially indebted for assistance in the preparation of this work
to my colleague, Charles Peabody, Ph.D., Honorary Director of the
Department of American Archæology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., and
also connected with the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. Having
access to the great library of Harvard University, he kindly took in
charge the Bibliography covering necessary titles for the information of
readers and students. While the result does not embody every reference,
yet it is the most extensive list ever presented up to the present time.
Messrs. Montgomery, Barr, and Brown also added a number of titles. Dr.
Peabody’s interest in “The Stone Age” and his unselfish labors and his
many suggestions and advice were potent factors in making the work
possible.

I am also under particular obligations to about forty-five persons who
have been kind enough to assist in the making of illustrations for “The
Stone Age.” It is no more than fair to state that without this
coöperation it would have been impossible for us to present so many
figures and such excellent photogravure plates, and at the same time
offer the two volumes at the price named in the original circulars.

Colonel Bennett H. Young, of Louisville, Kentucky, has made for me about
fifty half-tones of type-specimens in bone, shell, clay, and stone which
he used in his work “Prehistoric Men of Kentucky,” and also in
“Discoveries in Kentucky Caves,” just published. Mr. F. P. Graves, of
Doe Run, Missouri, a friend of mine for more than twenty years, made
eight photogravure plates of the best specimens in his collection and
presented these for use in “The Stone Age.”

Mr. B. W. Arnold, of Albany, New York, sent me by express a portion of
his collection, comprising some of the most beautiful projectile points
and knives of semi-precious stone that it has ever been my privilege to
examine. In order to emphasize the high workmanship and beauty of these
points, Mr. Arnold had five colored plates made. Color reproductions and
photogravures do justice to the art of stone-age man. I am particularly
indebted to both Messrs. Graves and Arnold for their kindness in making
possible these fine plates.

Professor William C. Mills, Curator of the Ohio State Archæological
Society and State University Museum at Columbus, and Mr. Clarence B.
Moore of Philadelphia, loaned me plates illustrating specimens found
during their explorations.

Professor William H. Holmes and Dr. F. W. Hodge of the Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, permitted the free use of contributed articles
as well as figures published in the Smithsonian Reports and the
_American Anthropologist_. The generous and hearty coöperation of all
these individuals and institutions whose names are herewith appended is
no small personal satisfaction to me. In addition to the names
presented, there are more than three hundred persons who sent me
photographs, drawings, or lengthy descriptions of the types in their
several localities.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO “THE STONE AGE”

ADDIS, ALBERT L., Albion, Indiana.
ALBEE, C., Red Rock, Montana.
ARNOLD, B. W., Albany, N. Y.

BAGG, HARRY W., New Berlin, N. Y.
BAIRD, E. E., Poplar Bluff, Mo.
BARR, JAMES A., Stockton, Cal.
BARRETT, S. A., Milwaukee, Wis.
BEAUCHAMP, W., Syracuse, N. Y.
BRAUN, H. M., E. St. Louis, Ill.
BROWN, C. E., Madison, Wis.
Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, N. Y.
BURKETT, H. F., Findlay, Ohio.

CALDWELL, F. M., Venice, Ill.
COLLIE, G. L., Beloit, Wis.

DEISHER, H. K., Kutztown, Pa.

FRANCK, H. W., Sandwich, Ill.

GRAVES, F. P., Doe Run, Mo.

HAMILTON, H. P., Two Rivers, Wis.
HAMPTON, GEORGE, Bridgeton, N. J.
HILLS, L. W., Ft. Wayne, Ind.
HODGE, F. W., Washington, D. C.
HOLMES, W. H., Washington, D. C.
HOLMES, W. A., Chicago, Ill.
HULL, GEORGE Y., St. Joseph, Mo.

Logan Museum, Beloit, Wis.

MILLS, W. C., Columbus, Ohio.
Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wis.
Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Mo.
MITCHELL, S. D., Ripon, Wis.
MONTGOMERY, PROFESSOR HENRY, Toronto, Can.
MOORE, C. B., Philadelphia, Pa.

New York State Museum, Albany, N. Y.
NORLAND, LUTHER A., La Jara, Colo.

Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
OWEN, DR. C. L., Chicago, Ill.

PEABODY, CHARLES, Cambridge, Mass.
PERKINS, G. H., Burlington, Vt.

Records of the Past, Washington, D. C.
REEDER, JOHN T., Houghton, Mich.

STEINBRUECK, E. R., Mandan, N. Dakota.

TOOKER, PAUL S., Westfield, N. J.

VAN RENSSELAER, STEPHEN, Newark, N. J.

WEBSTER, R. T., Rochester, N. Y.
WEST, G. A., Milwaukee, Wis.
WHELPLEY, H. M., St. Louis, Mo.
WILLIAMS, PROFESSOR E. H., JR., Woodstock, Vt.
WING, E. T. S., Portland, Maine.

YOUNG, COL. B. H., Louisville, Ky.

CONTENTS

I. WHY A CLASSIFICATION BASED ON ARCHÆOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALONE
IS NEEDED 1
II. PLANS FOR AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION 10
Classification of prehistoric artifacts, made by the
Committee on Nomenclature 23
Articles in stone 23
Articles in clay 26
III. THE CLASSIFICATION 31
Quarrying materials 31
The beginnings of culture 33
Quarries 34
IV. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 48
How manufactured 48
V. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 80
Types without stems 80
VI. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 99
Projectile points with stems expanding from base or with
sides parallel 99
Arrows, bows, and quivers 103
VII. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 127
Stem contracting from base 127
A master at flint-chipping 135
VIII. UNUSUAL FORMS IN CHIPPED OBJECTS 154
IX. AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 175
X. FLINT CELTS AND AXES 186
XI. SCRAPERS 198
Types with one or more scraping edges, without or with notch
(including circular) 198
XII. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 210
Perforators 210
Cached flint objects 216
XIII. HAMMER-STONES AND HAMMERS 222
XIV. CONCLUSIONS AS TO CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 232
XV. GROUND STONE 251
Polished stone hatchets or celts—the classification of
hatchets, adzes, gouges, and axes 251
XVI. GROUND STONE 273
The adze and the gouge 273
XVII. GROUND STONE 287
Grooved stone axes 287
Fluted stone axes 316
Conclusions as to celts, adzes, gouges, and axes 322
XVIII. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 329
The gorget and ornaments as seen by early explorers 329
XIX. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 362
The gorgets 362
Broken and worked gorgets 362
XX. GROUND STONE 376
Winged problematical forms 376
XXI. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 402
Pick and crescent, the boat-shaped, bar-forms, etc. 402
Bars and bar-amulets 402
Conclusions as to gorgets, winged objects, etc. 410
XXII. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 418
The spud-shaped implement 418
Classification 420
XXIII. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 431
Plummet-shaped stones: stone rings 431
XXIV. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 443
Bicaves, or discoidal stones, tubes, etc. 443
Tubular forms 453

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA

CHAPTER I
WHY A CLASSIFICATION BASED ON ARCHÆOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALONE IS NEEDED

In 1907 the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable work entitled
“Handbook of American Indians.”[1] This volume was the result of years
of labor on the part of about forty-five contributors. Had the “Handbook
of American Indians” treated of Stone-Age man as extensively as it has
dealt with modern tribes, historical occurrences, and arts and customs,
there would be no occasion for “The Stone Age.” Indeed it would be
presumptuous for one to offer the public “The Stone Age,” did the
“Handbook of American Indians” take up prehistoric cultures in complete
detail.

It is no more than right that this word of explanation be presented, in
order that my purpose in writing “The Stone Age” may be made clear, as
well as that the difference between the two works should be emphasized.
There is room for both publications, and I particularly recommend the
“Handbook of American Indians” to students and librarians, for it serves
an admirable purpose in bringing into reasonable compass everything
relating to Indian tribes, languages, arts, and customs. But it must
also be known that “The Stone Age” is a very different work from the
“Handbook of American Indians.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 1. A ledge in which are flint nodules. Johnson’s farm, near
Herndon, Tennessee.
]

In the “Handbook” the writers have concentrated their attention upon the
life of the American Indian as seen through the eyes and conceived by
the brains of those familiar with Indian history of the past two
centuries. Under various citations are axes, arrows, copper objects, and
other artifacts treated. But these must be necessarily brief, excellent
though they are. And I speak in no hostile criticism whatsoever in
stating that the “Handbook of American Indians” could not take up these
subjects in detail. While I highly recommend the “Handbook of American
Indians,” I am persuaded that the life of the Indian of to-day is
influenced by his contact with the white people; that he has drifted far
away from Stone-Age times; that while there were examples of real
aboriginal culture to be found in America during the past century, yet
the great bulk of the natives of this country passed out of the Stone
Age with the advent of the French into Canada, the Spaniards into the
South, and the Puritans into New England. It seems to me that the study
of all these learned individuals, the results of which are set forth in
the Indian “Handbook,” has led many of them to consider prehistoric life
in America as nearly the same as the life of our Indians for the past
one or two centuries. I cannot believe that the arts of the past are the
same to any appreciable extent as those which obtained at the time of
the Lewis and Clark expedition, and I am convinced that the tribes
living at the time of Lewis and Clark practiced arts which are to-day,
if not extinct, at least greatly inferior to those of ancient times.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the ceremonies practiced by the
tribes of to-day are of special value in measuring or understanding
prehistoric life.

[Illustration:

FIG. 2. A block of flint from a quarry in Indian Territory. (S. 1–2.)
Phillips Academy collection. See Figs. 3, 7, 11, etc., for further
reduction of this form.

_Explanation._ S. 1–1 means full size; S. 1–3 means one third size;
etc.
]

All of this does not mean that such studies have no value. On the
contrary, they are of the greatest value in ethnology. What I mean is
that they are of little value to the archæologist. The archæologist must
live in the past, and must deal with stone, shell, bone, and clay
objects, the like of which are not in use to-day. He must, through long
and painstaking labors both in the field and in the museum, form his
deductions. In these he is aided by numerous reports, papers, books, and
other published records of explorers, travelers, archæologists, and
ethnologists. But he must remember that he is studying the past and not
the present—an unwritten past, in fact.

It is well to emphasize the fact that “The Stone Age” is a
classification of man’s handiwork. It is not a work relating to
cultures, although remarks as to the culture and relation of tribes are
suggested frequently by certain types of specimens. And the cultures I
describe are ancient cultures, not modern. The linguistic map compiled
by Major Powell, and the “Handbook of American Indians” present the
habitations of existing tribes and their customs, far better and more
comprehensively than could I. The Sioux, the Cherokees, the Iroquois (or
any one of a score of tribes), may occupy the same region to-day that
other and extinct bands of red men claimed for their own centuries ago,
and the artifacts found therein may or may not be comparable with those
made and used by the present inhabitants of the section. It is these
older things and cultures to which I would confine “The Stone Age.”

In some respects the points of view of the ethnologist and of the
student of folk-lore and linguistics on the one hand, and of the
archæologist on the other, are quite divergent. And touching upon this
variance of opinion there is something to be said.

It has occurred to me that those museum men who collect and study modern
material more than the prehistoric have not a clear perspective of the
past in this country. As against this statement these gentlemen might
properly reply that those of us who study olden times fall into grievous
errors because we do not explain ancient cultures through a study of
cultures among living tribes.

[Illustration:

FIG. 3. (S. 2–3.) Block of flint; partly worked. W. A. Jacobs
collection. Similar to Fig. 5.
]

If any man will read carefully the “Jesuit Relations” and the narrations
of our earliest explorers among the Indians, he will see at once that
there is a great gulf between the aborigines of long ago and the Indians
of the present. The Sun Dance as witnessed by Catlin among the Mandans
and the Sun Dance as seen by Dr. George A. Dorsey on the Kiowa
Reservation are quite different affairs. The latter showed white man’s
influence, the former was more aboriginal. Much of the ancient or
prehistoric life we cannot reconstruct, but the day is coming when by
minute and unceasing study of these peculiar objects, and by the process
of elimination, we shall arrive at certain definite conclusions as to
the life of man in the past.

The aboriginal man was influenced by what he saw and heard in the world
of nature surrounding him. His religion, folk-lore, daily life, and his
entire being, were affected, modified, or directed by the primitive
world,—that world of the forest, the plain, the air, and the waters. To
study him aright we must cast aside our modern civilization, and if
possible—and that is very difficult—place ourselves in his world. The
Indian of to-day is not in that world. He hears his grandparents speak
of the “buffalo days,” and that conveys some meaning to his mind. But he
cannot go beyond the buffalo days; he knows nothing of the more
interesting times preceding. He can tell you about the folk-lore of his
tribe, yet he has no tradition of the first Spaniards, whether De Soto
or Coronado, or others. Notwithstanding that these Spaniards traversed
many Indian lands, and bore in their hands unheard-of weapons which made
smoke and noise, and killed at a distance; that they were clad in iron
suits, and were riding horses,—one hears little or nothing about it.
Such scenes must have impressed Indians who had never beheld the like
before, and one would imagine that there would be traditions handed down
regarding these miraculous strangers, yet one reads in vain for any
folk-lore relating to the coming of the Spaniards. This has always
appeared to me as one of the arguments against the trustworthiness of
folk-lore in matters of evidence as compared with that of archæology.

When one considers the subject in its broad aspect, one must admit that
our knowledge of prehistoric times has not advanced in the same ratio as
has our knowledge of the Indians of the historic period. The tribes
themselves show marked contrasts to-day, and in the past the differences
in culture may have been even more striking. It is, therefore, quite
likely that an implement used for a certain purpose by one tribe may
have been made use of by another tribe for a totally different purpose.

[Illustration:

FIG. 4. (S. unknown.) Probable manner of hafting the single-pointed
and the two-pointed chisels or picks, used in quarrying flint—in
digging the pits. Figs. 4 to 12, and Figs. 36 to 40, are from the
15th _Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology.
]

The tendency to explain much of prehistoric times through knowledge of
tribes whose customs are more or less saturated with white man’s
influence seems to me to be unfortunate. To make this clear, let me
present as an illustration the Sun Dance described by George Catlin, and
the Sun Dance described by Dr. Dorsey. More than sixty years intervened
between the two ceremonies. Catlin had no training in science, and
therefore some things must be overlooked in his favor. Yet the dance he
describes is purely aboriginal, or nearly so. Dr. Dorsey, on the other
hand, had all the advantages of scientific training covering many years,
and was able to take advantage of everything that he saw and heard
concerning the ceremony, to compare it with other observances and to
draw learned conclusions. Yet the Sun Dance as seen by Dorsey is totally
different, and is far less interesting and heroic than the same dance
observed by Catlin.

Going back further, we find among the “Jesuit Relations” and narratives
of other explorers, descriptions of certain ceremonies which appear to
retain their aboriginal character. In other words, they were less
European than similar affairs of later dates. Particularly is this true
among the Hurons, Iroquois, Ojibwa, etc. The customs seen among the
Sioux by Hennepin do not exist to-day.

It seems to me that in our haste to make records of tribes that are
passing away, we have published much material that the future
ethnologist will consider less important than similar observations of a
century ago. No matter how much tribes are affected by contact with
civilization, it is well to preserve their records even although the
more able scholars of the future will question some of our observations.
But while admitting the above, I wish to go on record as against the
present tendency, so general, to explain the arts, customs, daily life,
etc., of prehistoric man through our knowledge of a degenerate culture
among modern Indians.

Much of the material presented in this work cannot be explained through
such agencies; for there are hundreds of objects found in graves and
tombs, village-sites and cliff-houses, the like of which have been seen
in use among Indians by no white man whatsoever.

[Illustration:

FIG. 5. (S. 1–1.) First stage of work, after blocking-out. See Fig. 7
for description.
]

Therefore, it appears to me that a classification based on archæological
evidence (as far as possible) is needed, and I have attempted this in
“The Stone Age.”

* * * * *

The critical reader will wonder why I have quoted at length from certain
ethnologists on such subjects as textiles, bows and arrows, clothing,
pottery, and pipes, and omitted extensive quotations in other sections.
This is done purposely. In the field of ethnology much work has been
done. The “Handbook of American Indians” covers fully such subjects as
the bow, arrow, blanket, clothing, etc. Professor Mason was our highest
authority on the basket and textiles generally, as is Professor Holmes
on ceramic art. No possible improvement could have been made by me on
the published studies of these men. And as “The Stone Age” carries out
in detail the plan of the “Handbook,” I have embodied their papers in
part or in whole, where such papers dealt with titles which I had not
made the subject of a special study.

Of problematical forms, the divisions of chipped implements, hematites,
agricultural implements, hammers, pestles, mortars, tubes, and other
types, there are frequent descriptions. But these are brief, as a rule,
and I do not concur in some of the conclusions. Therefore, I have not
quoted at any length under such titles. Copper presents an extensive and
almost new field, and Mr. Charles E. Brown has, therefore, made it one
of the longest sections.

But, while “The Stone Age” does contain many quotations of length, I
have made all these a part of one general plan, and this leads up, as
readers will observe, to the differentiation of the various
culture-groups existing in America in very ancient times. And thus,
towards the end of Volume II, one enters an entirely new field. There
are opened to archæologists possibilities of future study—very important
study, in fact.

CHAPTER II
PLANS FOR AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

There are something like three hundred museums or institutions in the
United States that contain archæological collections. These exhibits
range from more than a million objects, as in the case of the
Smithsonian Institution, or Field Museum of Chicago, or the American
Museum of Natural History, to private collections of one to ten thousand
specimens each. I have roughly estimated the number of prehistoric
artifacts available for study, or those of aboriginal manufacture that
show little influence of European culture, at about eight million
objects.

Mr. Paul M. Rea, curator of the Charleston (South Carolina) Museum and
secretary of the American Museums Association, reports to me by letter
that seventy-eight museums have 991,974 specimens by count. This total
does not include the larger museums, and forty-seven smaller ones have
not reported. Mr. Rea states: “The following museums of importance have
either not returned information or have failed to give the extent of
their collections in figures: American Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, National Museum, Peabody Museum (Cambridge),
Peabody Museum (New Haven), University of Toronto, Canada.”

I suppose that these six institutions contain a total of at least four
million prehistoric, or early historic Indian objects. Most of these
exhibits are of objects in use long before Columbus discovered America,
although many are in ethnological collections comprised of things fifty
or a hundred years old. How many specimens are in the hands of private
collectors of the United States no man may know.

Reference to the Bibliography, presented in the second volume (just
before the Index) of this publication, will convince the reader that
much of our archæological material has been described by various
writers. But there is difference between description and classification.
Save Professor W. H. Holmes’s papers upon pottery, Dr. Thomas Wilson’s
work on the classification of knives, spear-points, and arrow-heads, Mr.
Gerard Fowke’s published papers along the same lines, Mr. Charles E.
Brown’s papers upon the so-called “spud,” and copper, Mr. J. D.
McGuire’s “Pipes and Smoking Customs,” and Cushing’s contributions (see
Bibliography), everything is description and not classification. Or, if
classifications are attempted, they relate to certain types, and are
brief. The “Handbook of American Indians” describes and illustrates
artifacts, but does not classify.

[Illustration:

FIG. 6. See Fig. 7 for description.
]

Sixteen years ago, in the _Archæologist_ (May, 1894, page 156), I called
attention to the need in this country of an archæological nomenclature
and classification. Whether some one had preceded me, or whether I had
made similar suggestions earlier, I am unable to state, but am of the
opinion that the matter had been suggested in one of my articles
previous to the date mentioned. However, be that as it may, no one paid
attention to the suggestion, which was afterwards repeated in two or
three articles over my signature. About five years ago, after several
attempts at such a classification, I had a long conference with Dr.
Charles Peabody, and presently he took up the matter with the American
Anthropological Association, and a committee was formed consisting of
Professor John H. Wright, Mr. J. D. McGuire, Dr. F. W. Hodge, Dr. C.
Peabody, and myself, with Dr. Peabody as chairman. We worked long and
assiduously upon this classification. Dr. Peabody and myself grouped and
regrouped most of the available specimens in the Andover collection
before we were satisfied with the results of our labors. Then we
submitted our scheme to the other members of the Committee. After more
than a year of labor the Committee presented a preliminary
classification which was accepted by the members of the Anthropological
Association at the Baltimore meeting, December, 1908. This
classification in its complete form will be found on pages 23 to 30.

[Illustration:

FIG. 7. (S. about 2–3 to full S.) Series of rejects from the South
Mountain rhyolite quarry, showing range of shaped forms. Figs. 5, 6,
and 7 are illustrative of successive grades of development.
]

But before explaining and expanding the accepted classification, it is
well to state that we have confined our plan to the arts, industries,
and so forth, of man, as expressed in his handiwork. If one realizes
this, he will at once understand that we have not included the
vocations, or cultures, or divisions of labor, or anything of that sort.
Such would be, manifestly, out of place in a classification of the
products of man’s handiwork.

[Illustration:

FIG. 8. (S. 1–1.) These four figures which follow are from W. H.
Holmes’s paper in the 15th _Annual Report_, pp. 5–150, Bureau of
Ethnology. They are selected forms illustrating progressive steps in
the shaping of leaf-blade implements from argillite, from village-
and shop-sites at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
]

Were one to consider primitive or prehistoric man from every aspect of
his life, a totally different classification would be necessary, one far
broader and more comprehensive. Again, we have thought of other
classifications which suggested themselves to the investigators. None of
these could be accepted entirely, for the simple reason that we do not
yet know the purpose of every object made and used by prehistoric man.
There are, however, two grand divisions to which no one can object—the
Known and the Unknown. All objects naturally fall into these. But they
are too sweeping in character and have not been adopted,
although—regardless of form or material—all Stone-Age implements are of
one or the other of these two grand divisions: those whose purpose is
clear to us, and those regarding which we have no positive knowledge.
Under these heads one might summarize all the implements or
paraphernalia made use of by the man, the woman, the priest, the
warrior, the child. Or one might subdivide, and under the heading of
woman place objects made use of in the carrying industry, domestic
science, agriculture, etc. But in following such a classification one is
beset by certain difficulties. We are not certain as to the division of
labor between man and woman. The lines are not so sharply drawn among
barbarians as with ourselves in some matters; in others they are more
sharply drawn. The construction of a wigwam, a cabin, a tepee, or a
council-house, might be placed under archæological architecture,
primitive though it is. Just where to draw the line between the insignia
of the priest and highly ornamental possessions of the wealthy warrior
presents a problem not easy of solution.

As has been stated on page 12 the life of prehistoric man is such that
while one may classify his implements according to type or form and
material and supposed use, it is not possible in every instance to
affirm positively that this object was made use of by the man and that
by the woman, this by the priest and that by the warrior.

[Illustration:

FIG. 9. Described under Fig. 8.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 10.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 11.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 12.

All described under FIG. 8.
]

Professor Otis T. Mason, of the United States National Museum, gave much
thought to ethnological matters, and particularly his studies have been
directed toward the arts, industries, and occupations of living tribes.
These studies led him to discourse upon the divisions of labor,
beginnings of culture, on the carrying industry, agriculture, traps in
use among the Indians, and other subjects.

He grouped the various industries in the “Handbook of American Indians,”
page 97; and under the citation of implements, tools, utensils, he gave
a sketch-classification of the daily pursuits and implements used
therein. His paper upon arts and industries I copy in part (omitting
references), as it embodies one of several classifications possible of
the life of the Indian:—

“The arts and industries of the North American aborigines, including all
artificial methods of making things or of doing work, were numerous and
diversified, since they were not limited in purpose to the material
conditions of life; a technique was developed to gratify the esthetic
sense, and art was ancillary to social and ceremonial institutions and
was employed in inscribing speech on hide, bark, or stone, in records of
tribal lore, and in the service of religion....

“The arts and industries of the Indians were called forth and developed
for utilizing the mineral, vegetal, and animal products of nature, and
they were modified by the environmental wants and resources of every
place. Gravity, buoyancy, and elasticity were employed mechanically, and
the production of fire with the drill and by percussion was also
practiced. The preservation of fire and its utilization in many ways
were also known. Dogs were made beasts of burden and of traction, but
neither beast nor wind nor water turned a wheel north of Mexico in
pre-Columbian times. The savages were just on the borders of machinery,
having the reciprocating two-hand drill, the bow and strap-drills, and
the continuous-motion spindle.

“Industrial activities were of five kinds: (1) Going to nature for her
bounty, the primary or exploiting arts and industries; (2) working-up
materials for use, the secondary or intermediary arts and industries,
called also shaping arts or manufactures; (3) transporting or traveling
devices; (4) the mechanism of exchange; (5) the using-up or enjoyment of
finished products, the ultimate arts and industries, or consumption. The
products of one art or industry were often the material or apparatus of
another, and many tools could be employed in more than one; for example,
the flint arrow-head or blade could be used for both killing and
skinning a buffalo. Some arts or industries were practiced by men, some
by women, others by both sexes. They had their seasons and their
etiquette, their ceremonies and their tabus.

[Illustration:

FIG. 13. (S. about 1–3.) Hammer-stones. Phillips Academy collection.
These are from Flint Ridge, Ohio, and were made use of in the
manufacture of turtlebacks and discs.
]

“_Stone-craft._—This embraces all the operations, tools, and apparatus
employed in gathering and quarrying minerals and working them into
paints, tools, implements, and utensils, or into ornaments and
sculptures, from the rudest to such as exhibit the best expressions in
fine art. Another branch is the gathering of stone for building.

“_Water industry._—This includes activities and inventions concerned in
finding, carrying, storing, and heating water, and in irrigation; also,
far more important than any of these, the making of vessels for plying
on the water, which was the mother of many arts. The absence of the
larger beasts of burden and the accommodating waterways together
stimulated the perfecting of various boats to suit particular regions.

“_Earth-work._—To this belong gathering, carrying, and using the soil
for construction purposes, excavating cellars, building sod- and
snow-houses, and digging ditches. The Arctic permanent houses were made
of earth and sod, the temporary ones of snow cut in blocks, which were
laid in spiral courses to form low domes. The Eskimo were especially
ingenious in solving the mechanical problems presented by their
environment of ice....

[Illustration:

FIG. 14. Free-hand, or direct percussion. First step in shaping an
implement from a boulder. Figs. 23, 28, and 29 to 33 are from the
_American Anthropologist_, vol. IV, 1891—W. H. Holmes’s paper.
]

“_Ceramic art._—This industry includes all operations in plastic
materials. The Arctic tribes in the extreme North, which lack proper
stone, kneaded with their fingers lumps of clay mixed with blood and
hair into rude lamps and cooking-vessels, but in the zone of intense
cold, besides the ruder forms there was no pottery....

“_Metal-craft._—This includes mining, grinding of ores and paint,
rubbing, cold-hammering, engraving, embossing, and overlaying with
plates. The metals were copper, hematite and meteoric iron, lead in the
form of galena, and nugget gold and mica. No smelting was done.

[Illustration:

FIG. 15. Flaking-tool—being a shaft or stick, thirty inches to four
feet. These were pointed with bone or buck-horn.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 16. Flaking-tool—lower branch utilized to form a crotch in which
blow was struck. Upper opposite branch used to secure a heavy stone
to give weight and increase the pressure.

(From George Sellars’s article in the
_Smithsonian Report_, 1885, pt. 1, reprinted
in Chapter IV.)
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 17. A plan view of the outer or high side of an ordinary flake.
]

“_Wood-craft._—Here belongs the felling of trees with stone axes and
fire. The softest woods, such as pine, cedar, poplar, and cypress, were
chosen for canoes, house-frames, totem-poles, and other large objects.
The stems of smaller trees were used also for many purposes. Driftwood
was wrought into bows by the Eskimo. As there were no saws, trunks were
split and hewn into single planks on the North Pacific Coast. Immense
communal dwellings of cedar were there erected, the timbers being moved
by rude mechanical appliances and set in place with ropes and skids. The
carving on house-posts, totem-poles, and household furniture was often
admirable. In the Southwest underground stems were carved into objects
of use and ceremony.

“_Root-craft._—Practiced for food, basketry, textiles, dyes,
fish-poisoning, medicine, etc. Serving the purposes of wood, the roots
of plants developed a number of special arts and industries.

“_Fibre-craft._—Far more important than for textile purposes, the stems,
leaves, and inner and outer bark of plants and the tissues of animals
having each its special qualities, engendered a whole series of arts.
Some of these materials were used for siding and roofing houses; others
yielded shredded fibre, yarn, string, and rope; and some were employed
in furniture, clothing, food receptacles and utensils. Cotton was
extensively cultivated in the Southwest.

“_Seed-craft._—The harvesting of berries, acorns, and other nuts, and
grain and other seeds, developed primitive methods of gathering,
carrying, milling, storing, cooking, and serving, with innumerable
observances of days and seasons, and multifarious ceremony and lore.

“Not content with merely taking from the hand of nature, the Indians
were primitive agriculturalists. In gathering roots they first
unconsciously stirred the soil and stimulated better growth. They
planted gourds in favored places, and returned in autumn to harvest the
crops. Maize was regularly planted on ground cleared with the help of
fire, and was cultivated with sharpened sticks and hoes of bone, shell,
and stone. Tobacco was cultivated by many tribes, some of which planted
nothing else.

“_Animal industries._—Arts and industries depending on the animal
kingdom include primarily hunting, fishing, trapping, and domestication.
The secondary arts involve cooking and otherwise preparing food; the
butchering and skinning of animals, skin-dressing in all its forms;
cutting garments, tents, boats, and hundreds of smaller articles, and
sewing them with sinew and other thread; working claws, horn, bone,
teeth, and shell into things of use, ornaments, and money; and work in
feathers, quills, and hair....

[Illustration:

FIG. 18. A device for holding stones in place while pressure was being
applied.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 19. Making flakes by means of lever pressure. This shows the
manner of utilizing a standing tree. (See Sellars’s article in
Chapter IV.)
]

“The artizans of both sexes were instinct with the esthetic impulse; in
one region they were devoted to quillwork, those of the next area to
carving wood and slate; the ones living across the mountains produced
whole costumes adorned with bead-work; the tribes of the central area
erected elaborate earthworks; workers on the Pacific Coast made
matchless basketry; those of the Southwest modeled and decorated pottery
in an endless variety of shapes and colored designs. The Indians north
of Mexico were generally well advanced in the simpler handicrafts, but
had nowhere attempted massive stone architecture.”

The Committee on Archæological Nomenclature presented its completed
report at the Baltimore meeting of the American Anthropological
Association, 1908. This was published in the _American Anthropologist_,
January-March, 1909, page 114. Pottery was classified first, but as I
begin with chipped implements I present the classification of pottery
last.

[Illustration:

FIG. 20. Showing strong massive shank for securing to a shaft or
handle.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 21. First two objects beveled—the one to the left showing
strength of cutting-edge. The one to the right shows a different
mode of attachment. (See Sellars’s article, Chapter IV.)
]

CLASSIFICATION OF PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS, MADE BY THE COMMITTEE ON
NOMENCLATURE

ARTICLES IN STONE

_Chipped Stone_

I. Knives and projectile points.

Larger—5 cm. (2 inches) or more in length.

Smaller—less than 5 cm. (2 inches) in length.

Types.

1. Without stem.

(A) Without secondary chipping (flakes).

(B) With secondary chipping.

(a) Pointed.

(a´) At one end.

Base concave.

Base straight.

Base convex.

Sides convex.

One side convex, one side straight.

(b) Ends convex.

(b´) At both ends.

2. With stem.

(A) Stem expanding from base—with or without barbing.

(a) Base concave.

(b) Base straight.

(B) Stem with sides parallel—with or without barbing.

(a) Base concave.

(b) Base straight.

(a) Base concave.

(b) Base straight.

II. Scrapers.

Types.

1. With one or more scraping edges.

2. Without or with notch (including circular.)

III. Perforators.

Types differentiated by

1. Cross-section.

(A) Round.

(B) Quadrangular or irregular.

2. Stem.

(A) Without stem.

(B) With stem.

(a) Stem expanding gradually.

(b) Stem expanding suddenly.

IV. Hammer-stones.

Types.

1. Spheroidal.

2. Discoidal (a) “Pitted.”

(b) Not “pitted.”

3. Elongated (a) Grooved.

(b) Not grooved.

_Ground Stone_

I. Problematical forms.

1. Laminæ (i. e., flat “spuds,” “gorgets,” and pendants.)

Types.

(A) Spade-shaped.

(B) Ovate.

(a) Sides concave (not common).

(b) Sides straight.

(D) Spear-shaped.

(E) Rectangular.

(a) Sides concave.

(b) Sides straight.

(F) Shield-shaped.

(G) Pendants.

(a) Celt-shaped.

(b) Rectangular.

2. Resemblances to known forms.

(A) Animal-shaped stones.

(B) Boat-shaped stones.

(a) Longer, resembling true “bars.”

(b) Shorter, “ridged” or “expanded gorgets.”

(D) Spool-shaped stones.

(E) Pick-shaped stones.

(F) Plummet-shaped stones.

(G) Geometrical forms.

(a) Spheres.

(b) Hemispheres.

(d) Cones.

3. Perforated stones with wings.

(A) Wings with constant rate of change of width.

(a) Wings expanding from perforation.

(b) Wings with sides parallel.

(B) Wings with varying rate of change of width.

II. Tubes and tube-shaped stones.

III. Beads.

IV. Pitted stones other than hammer-stones.

[Illustration:

FIG. 22. Indians quarrying and hammering quartzite boulders. From 15th
_Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology. Designed by Holmes.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 23. Direct percussion. Manner of striking where the edge is
sharp.
]

ARTICLES IN CLAY

Simple vessels in clay may be presumed to cover all forms except
eccentric or conventionalized (i.e., animal-shaped) forms on the one
hand, and discs and pipes on the other.

[Illustration:

FIG. 24. (S. about 1–3.) A chipped hoe or digging-tool, and four
specimens from the ancient quarries near Herndon, Tennessee.
Phillips Academy collection. A complete nodule is shown in the lower
right-hand corner. The others are broken nodules, showing the
concretionary character of the flint.
]

It is suggested by the Committee that members of the American
Anthropological Association having occasion to describe clay vessels,
may classify them: first, as to material, as consisting of clay, sand,
shell, and their combinations, and as possessing certain general
ground-color; second, as to manufacture, as sun-dried or fired, as
coiled or modeled—with the variations and steps of each process; third,
as to form; fourth, as to decoration, as plain, stamped, incised, or
painted. With regard to form, the Committee begs to offer the following
definitions and suggestions in classifications.

(NOTE. In all cases measurements are considered as referring to an
upward direction.)

A simple vessel must consist of a body, and may have a rim, neck, foot,
handle, or any combination.

1. Body: A formation capable of holding within itself a liquid or a
solid substance.

2. Rim: (A) A part of the vessel forming the termination of the body.
(B) A part of the vessel recognizable by a change in the thickness of
the material in the terminal sections.

3. Neck. A part of the vessel recognizable by a more or less sudden
decrease in the rate of increase or decrease of the diameter.

4. Foot. An attachment to the vessel which serves as support to the body
when upright.

5. Handle: A part of the vessel consisting of some outside attachment,
not serving as support.

Body: It is suggested that in comparing the forms or cross-sections of
vessels particular attention be paid to the proportion of the diameter
to the height, to the rate of change of this proportion, to the place of
change of direction in this proportion, and to refer to the following
definitions of the two dimensions:

Height: the distance from the base to a horizontal plane passing through
the most distant part of the rim.

Diameter: the distance from any one point on the sides to any opposite
point on the sides, measured on a plane at right angles to the height.

Base: the point of contact or a plane of contact of the body with a
horizontal surface.

Types. Body: These are so varied, depending on relative height and
diameter of the cross-section, that an analysis is too cumbersome to be
of service to general reference.

Neck: 1. Expanding.

2. Cylindrical.

3. Contracting.

4. Combinations.

Lip: A part of the neck or body recognizable by a suddenly increasing
diameter of neck or body, that continues increasing to the rim.

[Illustration:

FIG. 25. (S. about 1–2.) Cores and flake knives from the ancient
quarries, Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio. Material: light pink,
white and brown chalcedony. Phillips Academy collection.
]

Foot: 1. Continuous.

(A) Expanding.

(B) Cylindrical.

(D) Combinations.

Feet: 2. Not continuous.

Differentiated by

(A) Number.

(B) Angle with the horizontal.

(a) Expanding upward.

(b) Perpendicular.

Handles. Types.

Differentiated by

1. Number.

2. Position on the vessel.

(A) Body.

(B) Neck.

(D) Combinations.

3. Form.

(A) Continuous with body or neck.

(B) Not continuous with body or neck.

(a) With constant direction.

(b) With varying direction.

(A′) Round.

(B′) Flat.

(C′) Coiled.

Here ends the Committee’s Classification, but there should be added, I
feel convinced, articles in bone, shell, copper, hematite, mica, and
cannel coal. Copper has been classified by Mr. Charles E. Brown, while I
have grouped bone, shell, and hematite.

CHAPTER III
THE CLASSIFICATION

QUARRYING MATERIALS

We have seen that Professor Mason dealt with occupations rather than
implements,[2] and did not attempt a classification of artifacts.

The result of the Committee’s investigation was to the effect that we
should classify objects as to form and material, not taking into account
possible use in our grouping. It was supposed that whoever made use of
the classification would present his own interpretation of the meaning
of these various forms.

The classification was intended merely as a skeleton on which future
classifications were to be built. It must be understood that the
expansion of this classification and the changes found necessary and
presented here in “The Stone Age” are submitted on my own
responsibility. The classifications in axes, celts, copper, bone and
shell, mortars and pestles, etc., were made by me because the Committee
did not present grouping of these forms; all of which is no reflection
on the Committee. It is simply that as no classification of these other
things existed, it was necessary to make one.

In describing ancient art there is another method of
classification—according to locality. But in any work as large as “The
Stone Age,” the adoption of such classification necessitates more or
less repetition, and I think it better to describe under a given chapter
all the implements of one kind no matter where found in the United
States than to treat of geographical distributions. I consider this
method less cumbersome and more satisfactory than the separate treatment
of all the localities. So far as possible all illustrations are confined
to prehistoric objects.

No illustrations—save one or two—of axes in handles, wooden objects or
ancient bows are offered. Readers are referred to the museums for such
exhibits. To show such, would swell the volumes to unwieldy proportions,
and “The Stone Age” already contains more figures than were originally
intended.

The textile fabrics, wooden objects, and other things of perishable
materials, except where buried in caves in the dry Southwest, have long
ago disappeared, and therefore, to make comparisons, one must inspect
the older forms among ethnological objects in the collections at New
York, Chicago, Denver, Washington, Milwaukee, Cambridge, Toronto, etc.,
for illustration. There are many hafted implements of various kinds in
existence in museums to-day—particularly in the case of specimens
collected one hundred years ago—which present trustworthy evidence as to
how similar things may have been mounted in prehistoric times. Again,
there are hundreds of modern objects collected in the past century among
living tribes that to the student of archæology appear to exhibit white
man’s influence and are of little or no value in understanding real
Stone-Age times. As an illustration of this, I mention the various forms
of catlinite pipes, recent examples of which are quite degenerate as
compared with the old forms. The same is true of most of the Pueblo
pottery, and the war-clubs of Plains tribes.

[Illustration:

FIG. 26. (S. 2–3.) Flint knives, made of red and yellow jasper.
William C. Mills, Columbus, Ohio.
]

It seems strange that with the thousands of pages on archæological and
ethnological subjects, with which our libraries are filled, no such
classification was attempted previously. The time is certainly opportune
for such a work and while I am aware that the following pages are more
or less incomplete, still I believe that some one should make a
beginning, even though the future observers, who will know much more
regarding these interesting and mysterious artifacts of the past than do
we of the present, may question some of the observations herein set
forth.

[Illustration:

FIG. 27. (S. 1–2.) Flint cores from which the knives are made.
Specimen to the left, red and yellow jasper. Specimen to the right,
maroon colored jasper. Flint Ridge material. William C. Mills,
Columbus, Ohio. This and some thirty other figures loaned by Mills,
appeared in the publications of the Ohio State Archæological and
Historical Society, and illustrated his explorations.
]

I suggest that the critical reader bear in mind that a classification of
all the implements of the United States brings out certain facts or
tendencies, or may indicate conclusions which escape the observer who is
interested in the exploration of a given territory rather than in a
study of types, or who is not familiar with the implements of most of
the United States.

Therefore, “The Stone Age” is narrowed to a description of the
ornaments, utensils, weapons, and artifacts of ancient man in America.
Otherwise, one could easily fill ten volumes instead of two, and even
then not exhaust the subject.

No description of mounds, earthworks, cliff-houses, pueblos, or
village-sites is possible in “The Stone Age.” Readers are referred to
the Bibliography, where titles relative to mound, cliff, fortification,
and village-site exploration and description will enable them to consult
publications relating to these subjects.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CULTURE

Some remarks upon the antiquity of man in America will be presented in
the concluding chapter of Volume II.

No one will deny that the present high culture enjoyed by most races and
tribes of men is the result or culmination of thousands of years of
development. Practically the entire world has advanced beyond the Stone
Age, and much of it may be said to have gone even beyond the Iron Age,
and into that of electricity. No sane man doubts that at some time or
other all the divisions of the human race were in the Stone Age. Whether
all the various peoples of many tongues and different colors are derived
from the same stock, it is not my purpose to discuss. It is sufficient
to state that while certain races of men developed a high culture,
others did not. Whether all these peoples had similar advantages or
began more or less in the same fashion, is beyond the scope of this
work. Suffice it to say that even so far back as in times undoubtedly
prehistoric, in every country the archæologist observes differences in
culture. This is true of America as of Egypt, or Europe, or Asia. We
have heard much with regard to the late date of the Stone Age in our own
country. True, stone implements and arts persisted some time after the
discovery by Columbus. Yet the recentness of the Stone Age in the United
States is easily explained when one considers that America was unknown
until 1492. Because stone implements were in use in remote portions of
the United States two centuries ago, it does not follow that man on this
continent is of no antiquity as compared with his brother in Europe.

In fact man may be, for aught we know, as old in America as in Europe or
Asia. There have been hundreds of pages published by Professor Holmes,
Dr. Abbott, the Reverend Dr. Wright, Dr. Wilson, Professor Chamberlin,
and others as to whether man of the glacial period, or earlier tertiary
man, existed in America. The evidence for and against the presence of
man twenty or thirty thousand years ago in the United States has been
presented in numerous places, and the Bibliography will acquaint readers
with what has been said. It is not my purpose to attempt to decide this
question—as to the age of man on the American continent.

There are certain cultures that appear older than others, and it is
quite likely that they are older. All of these will appear in the
forthcoming pages, properly substantiated by such evidence as I am able
to present.

Let us, then, drop glacial or tertiary man and consider quarry material
and methods of working.

QUARRIES

During the process of manufacture of implements of flint the first forms
would scarcely fit into a classification based on complete forms or
types; therefore I have decided to begin a description of chipped
objects with a chapter on methods of quarrying and manufacture.

The quarries from which we know aboriginal man in the United States
obtained material for his knives and projectile points number perhaps
twenty. There may be small isolated sites, but the following were the
chief sources of material:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 28. Indirect percussion, as practiced by the Wintuns and also
described by B. B. Redding. In addition to this, Figs. 26, 32, 33,
and 34 are from the _American Anthropologist_, vol. II, 1891—W. H.
Holmes’s paper.
]

Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio.

The jasper quarries on the Susquehanna and Delaware.

Those of Indian Territory, Missouri, and Illinois.

Near Coshocton, Ohio.

Near Allentown, Pennsylvania.

The obsidian cliffs of Yellowstone Park.

Piney Branch, in the District of Columbia.

Southwestern New Mexico.

Little River, Tennessee. (See Fig. 1.)

Wyoming and California quarries.

(See Bibliography for others.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 29. Indirect percussion. Two persons being concerned. Practiced
by the Apaches, according to George Catlin.
]

Flint, chert, chalcedony, jasper, quartz, argillite, and other materials
of flint-like character occurred in regular veins, or in nodules or in
ordinary boulders or pebbles in the drift. Aboriginal man, therefore,
mined in a quarry or he dug in the drift, or he picked up from the
surface, or he worked in a limestone stratum to extract the nodular
flint. He sought in any one of these places according to his locality
and character of the material and its position. At Flint Ridge, the
largest flint quarries in the United States, there is a hill or ridge,
nearly eight miles in length and varying from a few hundred yards to as
much as three miles in width, which is literally filled with depressions
varying from small pits to one nearly a hundred feet in diameter and
twenty or more feet in depth at the present time. The flint from this
quarry is distributed throughout Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, portions of
Pennsylvania, and even west of the Mississippi. The amount of work done
at Flint Ridge by the aborigines passes comprehension. When one
considers their primitive methods of quarrying, it is surprising that
they were able to quarry such hard material as flint. Without the use of
fire, which they had to apply very carefully, first placing a coating of
clay over the flint, they would have been unable to remove any
considerable portion of the material.

The Flint Ridge chalcedony is beautifully colored, red, blue, cream
color, pink, and pure white. It is easily chipped, and was highly prized
by the natives.

I have not space for a long narrative of how the flint was quarried. It
is of more importance to tell readers how the implements were
manufactured. Mr. Gerard Fowke has made a study of Flint Ridge and
published an able paper in the National Museum Reports, 1884–5. He also
wrote a chapter for “Primitive Man in Ohio.” His paper was reprinted in
Bulletin no. III, Department of Archæology, Phillips Academy, 1906. I
quote, as to how the flint was quarried, from his paper:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 30. Flaking by pressure, a bone implement being used; (_a_) the
bone tool, (_b_) the stone, (_c_) the flake.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 31. Flaking by pressure, a bone point being used, the implement
to be shaped resting on a support.
]

“Digging away the earth with such tools as he could improvise,—pointed
sticks hardened by fire, antler, bone, or stone,—he came to the surface
of the flint. This resisted all his efforts until he thought of the
effects of heat. Placing wood upon it, he set fire to the pile. When the
stone had reached a high temperature he threw cold water on it; this
caused it to shatter and crack in all directions. Casting aside the
fragments, he repeated the operation, until he had finally burned his
way to the limestone beneath. Removing all burned portions of the flint,
he next procured a quantity of fine clay and spread a thick coating on
the top and sides of the stone, to prevent injury to it. Then building a
fire at the bottom of the hole, he soon burned away the limestone and
the lower part of the flint stratum, leaving the top projecting. This he
broke loose with large boulders of quartz or granite; hammers of this
sort, weighing from twenty to one hundred and fifty pounds, have been
found in the bottoms of pits that have been cleared out. Knocking loose
the clay, which had burned almost as hard as the stone, he found himself
in possession of a block of clear, pure flint. By means of the same
hammers he broke this into pieces of a convenient size for handling.
These were carried to a spot near by, which may be termed a
“blocking-out” shop. Here they were further broken by smaller hammers,
and brought somewhat into the shape of the implements which were to be
made from them. The work was never, or very seldom, carried beyond this
stage at the spot where it was begun; the subsequent manipulation was at
some other place, best designated as a “finishing-shop.” These are
characterized by quantities of small chips, flakes and spalls, broken
implements, and unfinished pieces, which were unavailable by reason of
some flaw or defect not discernible until the final work was begun. The
finishing touches were always made by means of pressure with a bone,
antler, or some other tough substance. Many finishing-shops are located
near the quarries, others at a distance, some of them several miles
away. The principal one was near the cross-road; here a pile of fine
chips, covering one fourth of an acre, and fully six feet in depth at
the central portion, existed when the country was first settled by the
whites, but from various causes it has been reduced until it now is all
of one level. This, while the largest, is only one of several hundred
such places.”

Similar operations were employed in Indian Territory and elsewhere. In
the quarries of Little River, Tennessee, the flint occurred in nodular
form in limestone ledges. It was easier for the natives to burn the
limestone and remove the nodules than to quarry in the flint layers of
Flint Ridge. Fig. 1 shows the nodules outcropping in two layers in the
limestone ledge.

Mr. D. N. Kern, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, informs me that there are
fully two hundred pits of various sizes where the natives quarried
material, within some miles of his home.

Professor Wm. H. Holmes published in the 15th _Annual Report_ of the
Bureau of Ethnology a comprehensive paper entitled “Stone Implements of
the Potomac-Chesapeake Tide-Water Province.” This paper embodies the
observations for a number of years on the archæology of Virginia,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The description of the quarries
along Piney Branch, a small tributary of the Potomac, in the District of
Columbia, in this volume is complete, and I wish to recommend to
students and readers who wish to obtain a broad understanding of the
subject a perusal of Professor Holmes’s paper. The entire genesis of
implement making is ably presented.

While other quarries have not been so carefully worked, and certainly
not described in detail, the method employed by the prehistoric peoples
at the Piney Branch quarry, and in the rhyolite sites further back in
the hills on either side of the Potomac, may be taken as typical of
aboriginal quarrying in the United States. That is, of quarrying in beds
where boulders or nodules are embedded in clay or gravel or till. The
boulder or nodule materials and the flint strata occurring in different
formations were quarried by different methods. The Piney Branch quarries
are an illustration of the separation of material from the general mass
and composite of boulder and clay. It was easy to get at the material,
but more difficult to fashion the implements, because quartzite, quartz,
and argillite were harder to work than flint. At Flint Ridge, while
quarrying was extremely difficult, the material once secured could be
very easily fashioned. The planes of cleavage of flint, as all know,
were very different from those of the boulders found at Piney Branch.

[Illustration:

FIG. 32. Flaking by pressure. Manner of holding as observed among many
tribes by J. W. Powell and others.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 33. Flaking by pressure, bone pincers being used.
]

One illustration, Fig. 40, reproduced from Professor Holmes’s plate, is
self-explanatory. Before the stage represented in Fig. 37 is reached one
must imagine the ordinary oval or water-worn pebble of either quartzite
or argillite. This pebble was pried by means of levers from its ancient
bed. Both Professor Holmes and Mr. F. H. Gushing have constructed
life-sized models of Indians at work in the Piney Branch quarries
digging, hammering, flaking, in order to produce blades. (See Fig. 22.)
At Piney Branch itself the abundance of material made it a mecca for the
prehistoric people of the region. Several trenches dug by workmen under
the direction of Professor Holmes penetrated this mass of material to a
considerable distance. All of these, while varying in minor details,
emphasize the general proposition that the quarry was in use for a
considerable length of time.

I present several illustrations showing the method of hammering the
rough turtleback and partly finished blades and the completed forms.
These are from Professor Holmes’s paper. In addition I show
hammer-stones and blades from the collection of Phillips Academy,
Andover, representing similar work on other sites.

The difference to be noted between Piney Branch material and the
material of chert and flint, the working of which is described by Mr.
George Sellars, in Chapter IV, page 48, of this book, is considerable,
and the probable method of treatment varies in a more marked degree.
Apparently there was more pecking, hammering, etc., of these rude forms
than in the case of flint and chert. That is, flint and chert lent
themselves more readily to the flaker’s art.

The quarry at Piney Branch was productive of large numbers of rejects.
This is true of other sites as well, but it would seem that where
material was scarce, the natives made use of many objects quite as crude
as those we have designated as rejects. Only flawless materials seem to
have been made into implements at Piney Branch, at Flint Ridge, on the
Little River sites in Tennessee, and about the jasper quarries of
Pennsylvania. This is natural when one reflects that there was a wealth
of material and that the Indian naturally selected the best. But were
these objects, blocks of flint, and objects of all kinds deposited in
any of the large prehistoric villages, I am confident that much of the
material called by Professor Holmes rejects, would have been made use
of. I think we have overlooked the significance of this fact in our
archæological studies. On the Great Plains, and at certain places in
Texas, about the Mandan sites, and elsewhere, there are implements quite
as rude and ill-shaped as many of those illustrated in the several
reports as rejects, yet which show unmistakable evidence of usage.

[Illustration:

FIG. 34. (S. about 2–3.) Scrapers and rejects from an ancient workshop
near Swarts, on the Rio Mimbres, New Mexico. Material, unknown.
There are ancient ruins near by. Phillips Academy collection.
(Clement L. Webster.)
]

Again, the turtlebacks and discs and the other materials may be in part
rejects, and yet may represent material blocked out for transportation.
I have always been a firm believer in the theory that, as most of the
flint was carried on the backs of Indians, or transported in canoes from
one point to another, the discs, turtlebacks, and other forms which had
been quickly blocked out by a few strokes of the stone hammer,
represented material to be transported to distant villages and there
refashioned. We may explain the quantity of such material on all these
quarry sites by means of a dozen different theories. The workers blocked
out more than they could transport; they were interrupted during the
course of their labors by the enemy; they were prevented from returning;
they found that the home villages were supplied with knives, and
arrow-points, and did not return to the quarries for another supply; and
so on. That much of the material of quarries is rejects and refuse no
one will deny, but that all of it is to be so classed I do not believe.

[Illustration:

FIG. 35. (S. 1–1.) Flake knife. Frank L. Grove, Delaware, Ohio.
]

There seems to be no evidence that Flint Ridge, Piney Branch, Little
River, the Indian Territory quarries, or other sites were worked in
historic times. On the contrary, one may believe that the quarries
developed through a long period of time. The very character of them
seems to indicate this. If America has been peopled for thousands of
years, I can see no reasons against the suggestion that the quarries
were discovered three or four thousand years ago, that a few Indians
visited them each season, or at intervals, and that quarrying ceased
about the year 1600. While this is my opinion merely, yet I have given
the subject a great deal of thought. If all the material in a certain
region came from a special quarry, no long period of time could be
assigned that quarry. But an inspection of village-sites, of local
collections, of museum collections, will teach the observer that not
only is there present material from the local quarry, but there is also
a considerable quantity of chipped implements of flint, or chert, or
quartz, or rhyolite, or jasper, or other stones which are not native to
the locality. Not one site, but many sites furnished material. It is
evident from the abundance of chipped material that river boulders, the
talus of bluffs, and drift pebbles furnish a great part of the chipped
implements of this country. If the Indian found a suitable pebble or
block of flint or fragment of stone, he most certainly would fashion
that into an implement rather than travel a considerable distance and
work laboriously to produce that which was found nearer home. Because of
the observations cited above, I cannot believe that the quarries
represent the work of aboriginal man during a few generations, but that
they indicate, perhaps, three or four thousand years of occupation. Dr.
W. C. Barnard, of Seneca, Missouri, has given the subject much study. He
contributes his observation as follows:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 36. (S. 1–3 to 1–6.) Rejects from rhyolite quarried from the
mass, in upper row. Rejects from jasper quarried from the mass, in
lower row.
]

“Prehistoric man of this region [the Ozarks] secured his principal
supply of flint from boulders and pebbles found in the beds of
water-courses as evinced by the character of the material found in
hundreds of workshops along the banks of streams. All the more primitive
implements are of this boulder and pebble material.

[Illustration:

FIG. 37. (S. 1–3 to 1–6.) This figure is a portion of Professor
Holmes’s plate, chap. 1 (15th _Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology),
which for convenience I have divided. It carries to complete form
the specimens shown in Fig. 36. Numbers 7, 8, and 9 are cache forms
worked down from quartzite boulders; 9, 10, and 11 are from quartz
pebbles. It will be observed that these six specimens could be used
as knives, or when notched or barbed they were available as
projectile points.
]

“Later the rich deposits of cream white chert located in what is now
Ottawa County, Oklahoma, were discovered, yet this, I am sure, after a
close study of the two flint quarries, must have been in comparatively
recent times, for only a small per cent of implements made of the quarry
chert are found in the hundreds of village-sites and workshops of this
region, and all these, making due allowance for texture and location,
look new compared with the deeply patina-covered and frequently
decomposed surfaces of the pebble flint implement.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 38. (S. 1–3 to 1–6.) Continuation of Professor Holmes’s plate
(Fig. 36). First and second rows, _g_, _h_, and _i_, and _g_, _h_,
are rhyolite and jasper objects of quarry material. These represent
first the blades and forms more convenient for exchange, and in the
series _j_ to _q_ the completed projectile points.
]

Figs. 39 and 40 illustrate the process of manufacture. Fig. 39 shows
native quartzite boulders which have been reduced from _a_, to forms _e_
and _f_. These are not implements, and while Professor Holmes says they
were not transported, yet I am of the opinion that letters _e_, _f_,
_g_, and _h_, represent types which were in such form as would admit of
transportation. That is, they represent stone in such form as to be of
value for barter or exchange. If these specimens show flaws, as might
letters _a_, _b_, and _c_, then they are properly rejects, or if they
have hard protuberances which resisted the skill of the Indian, then
they are rejects.

Readers should compare Figs. 39 and 40 with Figs. 31 and 36. A
difference is observed between the pebbles and boulders shown in Figs.
39 and 24, and the quarry material shown in Figs. 31 and 36.

[Illustration:

FIG. 39. (S. 1–3.) See Fig. 40 for description.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 40. (S. 1–3.) Series of flaked forms illustrating progressive
steps in the manufacture of projectile points, etc., from quartzite
boulders, obtained from shop- and village-sites about Washington
City.
]

CHAPTER IV
CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

HOW MANUFACTURED

In all that has been said about the manufacture of chipped implements
the past thirty years, I have seen no paper that will compare in
technique with that presented by Mr. George E. Sellars of Illinois in
the _Smithsonian Report_, 1885, page 871. I have on several occasions
quoted a few pages from Mr. Sellars’s narrative, and intend here, with
the omission of some irrelevant paragraphs, to present his entire paper,
with the illustrations. At the time he wrote it, he was about eighty
years of age.

When, in 1885, Mr. Sellars called upon Dr. Rau of the Smithsonian
Institution and gave an account of his experiments and studies in
stone-chipping, he was asked by Dr. Rau to prepare the following paper.
This is now out of print, and it certainly merits preservation, as
nothing done in recent times by any observer can compare with the
knowledge obtained of flint-flaking by this remarkable citizen of the
Middle West.

As a boy Mr. Sellars was interested in mechanical arts. He enjoyed the
friendship of George Catlin. His mother’s father had come from Maryland,
bringing with him a large library of the best literature. Mr. Peale,
Sellars’s grandfather, was in correspondence with distinguished men of
England, and Sellars had access to letters from Thomas Jefferson and to
the letters of Captain John Smith of the Virginia colony, all of which
were family heirlooms.

Mr. Sellars devoted many years to study of stone implements found in the
Ohio Valley. Except with reference to a few of his remarks concerning
the use of levers in detaching flakes from implements, I am willing to
accept all that he says in explanation of how all objects were
manufactured. And even with reference to the use of levers, Sellars may
be correct, as it would be impossible to make flint spades by means of a
small flaking-tool held in the hand, although the first stage of the
implement might possibly be produced by the use of the hand-hammer. Be
that as it may, I am willing to accept Mr. Sellars’s observations, at
least until some one proves them to be of no value.

After an account of how he came to be interested in this subject, he
discourses upon Captain John Smith’s letters.

[Illustration:

FIG. 41. (S. about 1–3.) Mandan bone chipping-tools. These were made
use of in flaking flint implements, Mandan village-site, North
Dakota. Collected for Phillips Academy by E. R. Steinbrueck. The
Mandan collection, of which a score of figures are presented, was
purchased and presented to Phillips Academy by Edward H. Williams,
Jr.
]

“He [Smith] said in substance that the Indian carried with him a pouch
filled with flakes of precious stones, and within his mantle, in a
pocket made for the purpose, a small instrument made of bone or horn,
that he valued above all price and would not part with, and with it he
deftly shaped arrow-points and spear-heads from or out of the stone
flakes. On calling my grandfather’s attention to this, he said that
although there was much truth in what at the time was written from the
colonies, some things were highly colored and had to be sifted out or
taken with caution, and he supposed the cutting of hard stone with bone
or horn was one of these, and might be set down as one of Smith’s yarns.
I asked myself the question, what object could he have in inventing and
telling it? There must be some foundation. At all events, it made an
indelible impression on my mind.

“Most of the arrow-points found within my reach in Philadelphia,
Delaware, and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania, were chipped from massive
quartz, from the opaque white to semi-transparent and occasionally
transparent. Once, in company with my early preceptors, Jacob Pearce and
Isaiah Lukens, both well-known scientists, on a mineralogical excursion,
we came to a place where (judging from the quantities of flakes and
chips) arrow-points had been made. After most diligent search only one
perfect point was found, which is still in my possession marked with ink
‘1818.’ There were many broken ones, showing the difficulty in working
the material. Mr. Lukens collected a quantity of the best flakes to
experiment with, and by the strokes of a light hammer roughed out one or
two very rude imitations. No effort was made by pressure, which I cannot
now understand, for at that time I was in the habit of breaking off
points and trimming mineral specimens (likely to be injured by the
jarring of a hammer-stroke) by pressure with the hickory handle of my
mineral hammer.

“Major S. H. Long, afterwards colonel, who in the latter part of his
life succeeded Colonel John J. Abert as head of the Topographical
Department of the United States Army, whenever in Philadelphia, was a
frequent visitor at my father’s house; and, when preparing for his
expedition to the Rocky Mountains, in which my mother’s youngest
brother, Titian R. Peale, went as assistant naturalist, I saw him almost
daily. The subject of flaking and forming arrow- and spear-heads was one
of frequent discussion. My grandfather, C. W. Peale, was at that time
owner of the Philadelphia Museum, which had for that period a large
collection of Indian curiosities, among them, many collected by Lewis
and Clark on their northwestern expedition,—and to me the most
interesting was a box of stone implements in various stages of
manufacture, evidently collected with the view of illustrating the
process. They were never put on exhibition other than in the original
package, the lid of the box only having been removed. Major Long’s
attention was called to these, and he expressed his belief that on his
expedition he would learn the entire process, and on his return be able
to explain everything in the Lewis and Clark collection.

[Illustration:

FIG. 42. 7232 flint discs from a mound of the Hopewell group. Largest
cache of implements known to archæologists. (See page 218.)
]

“The expedition returned, and, as far as I know, without any positive
information as to the process of making the flakes. Mr. Peale said he
had seen squaws chipping flakes into small arrow-points, holding the
flake in their left hand, grasped between a piece of bent leather, and
chipping off small flakes by pressure, using a small pointed bone in the
right hand for that purpose. From this it was evident that John Smith’s
story was no myth. In my lifelong intimacy with Colonel Long the subject
of the flaking operation has frequently been one of conversation, on my
regretting that more attention had not been paid to it on either of his
expeditions. Knowing his preëminence as a civil engineer and his high
attainments as a mechanic, I thought more reliable information would
have been obtained by him and his party, composed as it was of such
prominent men of science. He said that flakes prepared for points and
other implements seemed to be an object of trade or commerce among the
Indian tribes that he came in contact with; that there were but few
places where chert or quartzite was found of sufficient hardness and
close and even grain to flake well, and at those places there were men
very expert at flaking. He had understood that it was mostly done by
pressure, and rarely by blows, but he had never witnessed the operation.
He expressed his belief that it was an art fast being lost, for he had
found among tribes who had never seen a white man since the advent of
Lewis and Clark, wrought-iron arrow-points made in England by the
Birmingham nailers, sent out as articles of trade by the fur companies,
and that they were preferred to the stone points.

“My early acquaintance with Catlin, the artist, was in the shop of
Catlin, musical instrument and model maker, of Philadelphia. There I
knew him as a very expert and superior workman in wood and ivory. As a
portrait painter he was not at that time successful. He painted strong
likenesses, but they lacked lifelike coloring. A delegation of Indians
on their way to Washington gave him an opportunity to paint the likeness
of one of the chiefs. This was exhibited in the Pennsylvania Academy of
Fine Arts, and from its novelty attracted much attention; in fact, it
was so far a success as to bring him into notice. About this time, I met
him very frequently; his conversation always drifted on to the great
value and importance of preserving correct likenesses of the Indians,
whom he believed to be fast passing away. We all know how well he lived
up to this idea, devoting his life to the work of producing the
collection of Indian portraits now in the National Museum.

“On Mr. Catlin’s return from his long sojourn among the Indians,
believing that, as an observing practical mechanic, nothing in the way
of art among them would escape him, I took the first opportunity to see
him. On my inquiry as to the mode in practice of splitting the stone
into flakes for arrow- and spear-points, his reply was by a question
characteristic of the man. He asked if I had forgotten Dr. Jones’s
axiom, ‘The least possible momentum is greater than the greatest
possible pressure.’ This was in allusion to a lecture on mechanics we
had together heard delivered by Dr. Thomas P. Jones (afterwards
Commissioner of Patents). He then added, ‘That is well understood by the
flake-makers among the Indians, but it will soon be among the lost arts,
just as the nests of Birmingham brass battered-ware kettles, the Yankee
tinware, and glass whiskey bottles have already almost totally destroyed
their crude art of pottery-making. The rifle is taking the place of the
bow and arrow. For boys’ practice and for small game the iron points got
from the fur traders are preferred to stone. A common jack-knife is
worth to them more than all the flint knives and saws ever made.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 43. (S. 1–2.) Curved flake knife. Clement L. Webster collection.
Found in New Mexico.
]

“After expressing himself in this manner he went on to explain what he
had seen. He considered making flakes much more of an art than the
shaping them into arrow- or spear-points, for a thorough knowledge of
the nature of the stone to be flaked was essential, as a slight
difference in its quality necessitated a totally different mode of
treatment. The principal source of supply for what he termed home-made
flakes was the coarse gravel bars of the rivers, where large pebbles are
found; those most easily worked into flakes for small arrow-points were
chalcedony, jasper, and agate. Most of the tribes had men who were
expert at flaking, and who could decide at sight the best mode of
working. Some of these pebbles would split into tolerably good flakes by
quick and sharp blows striking on the same point; others would break by
a cross-fracture into two or more pieces; these were preferred, as good
flakes could be split from their clean fractured surface by what Mr.
Catlin called impulsive pressure, the tool used being a shaft or stick
of between two and three inches diameter, varying in length from thirty
inches to four feet, according to the manner of using them. These shafts
were pointed with bone or buck-horn, inserted in the working end bound
with sinews, or rawhide thongs, to prevent splitting. (See Fig. 15.) For
some kinds of work the bone or horn tips were scraped to a rather blunt
point, others with a slightly rounded end of about one half inch in
diameter. He described various ways of holding the stone while the
pressure was being applied. A water-worn pebble broken transversely was
commonly held by being sufficiently embedded in hard earth to prevent
its slipping when held by the foot as the pressure was applied. Large
blocks of obsidian or any easily flaked stones were held between the
feet of the operator while sitting on the ground, the impulsive pressure
being given to the tool grasped in both hands, a cross-piece on the
upper end resting against his chest, the bone end against the stone in a
slight indentation, previously prepared, to give the proper angle and to
prevent slipping.

“In some cases the stone operated on was secured between two pieces or
strips of wood like the jaws of a vise, bound together by cords or
thongs of rawhide; on these strips the operator would stand as he
applied the pressure of his weight by impulse. The best flakes, outside
of the home-made, were a subject of commerce, and came from certain
localities where the chert of the best quality was quarried in sheets or
blocks, as it occurs in almost continuous seams in the intercalated
limestones of the Coal Measures. These seams are mostly cracked or
broken into blocks, that show the nature of the cross-fracture, which is
taken advantage of by the operators, who seem to have reduced the art of
flaking to almost an absolute science, with division of labor; one set
of men being expert in quarrying and selecting the stone, others in
preparing the blocks for the flaker. This was done when the blocks were
nearly right-angled at the corners, by striking off the corner where the
flaking was to commence, and, with a properly directed blow with a hard
pebble stone, knock off of the upper edge a small flake, making a seat
for the point of the flaking-tool. Sometimes these blows were carried
entirely across the front upper edge of the block, making a groove
entirely across the edge, when the first row of flakes have been thrown
off. It is the work of this operator to prepare seats for a second row,
and so on. What was meant by almost absolute science was a knowledge and
skill that would give the proper direction to the pressure to throw off
the kind of flake required.... The staffs of these flaking-tools were
selected from young hard-wood saplings of vigorous growth. A lower
branch was utilized to form the crotch in which the blow was struck.
(See Fig. 16.) Another branch on the opposite side was used to secure a
heavy stone to give weight and increase the pressure. When the stone to
be flaked was firmly held, the point adjusted to give the pressure in
the required direction, the staff firmly grasped, the upper end against
the chest of the operator, he would throw his weight on it in successive
thrusts, and if the flake did not fly off, a man standing opposite would
simultaneously with the thrust give a sharp blow with a heavy club, it
being so shaped that its force is downward close in the crotch. It has
been represented to me that a single blow rarely failed to throw off the
flake, frequently the entire depth of the block of stone, sometimes as
much as ten or twelve inches. The tooth or tusk of the walrus was highly
prized for tips of the flakers.

[Illustration:

FIG. 44. (S. 1–2.) Crude knives. Material: jasper and chert. D. N.
Kern collection, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
]

“What I have thus far written is at second hand, being merely
recollections of conversations at various times with the parties I have
referred to, and more recently with a man who for over thirty years had
been connected with a fur company, and who had lived most of that time
among the Indians, and much of it, as a trapper.

“What I now propose is to give some of my experimental practice in
flaking and working flint (chert), and (from a purely mechanical
standpoint) some conclusions drawn from a pretty extensive examination
of the waste and refuse as well as finished and partly finished work
left in the aboriginal flint workshops.

[Illustration:

FIG. 45. (S. about 1–2.) Turtlebacks almost ready for the flaking
process. Collection of E. T. Wing, South Portland, Maine.
]

“There are many places along the banks of the Ohio River and its
tributaries that are not subject to the annual overflow, but are still
below the occasional great floods, where the flaking process has been
extensively carried on, and where cores and waste chips are abundant. At
one of these places, on the Kentucky side of the river, I found a number
of chert blocks, as when first brought from the quarry, from which no
regular flakes had been split; some had a single corner broken off as a
starting-point. On the sharp, right-angled edge of several, I found the
indentations left by small flakes, having been knocked off evidently by
blows, as described by Catlin, as a preparation for seating the
flaking-tool. Most of the localities referred to are now under
cultivation, but before being cleared of timber and subjected to the
plow, no surface relics were found; but on the caving and wearing away
of the riverbanks, as the light earth washed away, many spear- and
arrow-heads and other stone relics were left on shore. After the land
had been cleared and the plow had loosened the soil, one of the great
floods that occur at intervals of some fifteen or twenty years would
wash away the loose soil, leaving the great flint workshops exposed. It
is from the stores of material left, the cores or nuclei thrown aside,
caches of finished and unfinished implements and flakes, the tools and
wastage, vast accumulations of splints, etc., that we can, on critical
examination, draw tolerably correct ideas of the mode of working
pursued.

[Illustration:

FIG. 46. (S. 4–5.) Knife made from a large flake from a long block of
flint. Material: yellow chert. Dr. A. G. Clyne, Paragould, Arkansas.
]

* * * * *

“Experience has taught the operator the best shape of edge to apply the
pressure to accomplish his object, and it has also taught him how to
reach it in the simplest possible way. A spoon-shaped hollow on the top
of a flattened log, or even a gutter or groove cut in it, furnishes the
means of holding the flake firmly, the raised or high side placed in the
hollow, the flat side up; with the ends of the fingers of his left hand
pressed on it he holds it firmly, while with his right hand a downward
pressure is given by the flaking-tool which breaks off chips with a
fracture of about forty-five degrees from the flat surface, leaving the
edge in the best possible shape for future work, and that is the
condition of these cache flakes as they are found.

“In old times, before the invention and introduction of planing and
shaping machines to work metals, the first and most important lesson
taught to the machinist’s apprentice was the use of the hand-hammer and
cold-chisel. When an outer shell was to be removed from a metal casting
and its surface left in condition to be finished by file or scraper, the
smoothness and regularity of that surface was essential, not only for
economy in working, but accuracy of the file finish. The apprentice was
taught to hold his cold-chisel and so direct the strokes of his hammer
that when a chip was started the chisel should hold to it, and not be
allowed to cut too deep or slip and fly out, leaving a shape that is
difficult to start a fresh cut without leaving ridges or cutting deeper,
in either case causing additional labor for the finisher.

“To a practical mechanic the examination of such a flint workshop as I
have described—its waste chips to the partly worked flakes, the
roughed-out blocks, and the finished implements—reveals a line of
workmanship so clear that it can be followed to the production of the
same results.

[Illustration:

FIG. 47. (S. 1–3.) Group of knives. From the collection of D. H. Kern,
Allentown, Pennsylvania. Material: argillite and jasper. As to the
use of flint knives, an interesting description is given by Pedro De
Castaneda, who accompanied Coronado in 1541 to Quivira (Kansas); he
states: “They cut the hide open at the back and pulled it off at the
joints, using a flint as large as a finger, tied in a little stick,
with as much ease as if working with a good iron tool. They gave it
an edge with their own teeth. The quickness with which they do this
is something worth seeing and noting.”
]

“The handling of the tool and flake to form an arrow-point is as
much an act requiring exactness and precision as the handling of the
cold-chisel and hammer is to the machinist. The first chip thrown off
is analogous to the first starting-work of the cold-chisel; it is the
text that must be adhered to the end of the chapter. Holding the flake
in such position that, commencing at what is intended for the point of
the intended work, the pressure with the flaking-point is brought to
bear close to the edge of the forty-five degrees angle and at right
angles to it; the result is a flake thrown off inclining towards the
stem end of the arrow-point. The seat left by this chip when thrown off
is concave on the edge of the flake, the advance corner of which is the
seating-point for the tool to throw off the next chip, which does not
entirely obliterate the concave of the first, and the following chip
leaves a serrated edge, the chips or flakes being generally parallel,
which is the object of a good workman to make them. When the flat side
by chipping has been reduced to nearly the required form, its edges are
in the best possible shape for chipping the opposite or high side, then
by alternate working from side to side the point is finished, either
leaving it with serrated edges or by after delicate work throwing off
the points, leaving a smooth, sharp edge. The indentations at the base
either for barbs or for thongs to secure the point to its shaft are
made by direct down pressure of a sharp point working alternately from
side to side, the arrow-point being held firmly on its flat face. From
the narrowness of the cuts in some of the specimens, and the thickness
of the stone where they terminate, I have inclined to the belief that
at the period they were made, the aborigines had something stronger
than bone to operate with, as I have never been able to imitate some
of their deep, heavy cuts with it; but I have succeeded by using a
copper point, which possesses all the properties of the bone, in
holding to its work without slipping and has the strength for direct
thrust required. A soft iron or a thoroughly annealed steel point
answers even a better purpose. As yet no copper has been found on this
flaking-ground, though a few copper beads and remnants of what appear
to have been ornaments have been taken from the mounds on the ridges of
the Saline, which I think is evidence that they had that metal at the
earliest time work was done on this flaking-bank.

[Illustration:

FIG. 48. (S. a little over 1–2.) Knives with curved blades. Materials:
black flint, slate, and jasper. Dr. T. B. Stewart, Lockhaven,
Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 49. (S. 2–5.) Three flake knives; four ordinary ovate knives; one
peculiar knife. S. D. Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

“Bryce Wright in his description of the Scandinavian knives or daggers
refers to them as being most beautifully dentilled with parallel flaking
and serrated edges. He says: ‘These knives or lances are true marvels of
prehistoric art, and show an amount of skill and workmanship which
cannot be imitated in the present age, the art of fashioning them having
been entirely lost.’ Sir John Lubbock, on page 104 of ‘Prehistoric
Times,’ says: ‘The crimping along the edge of the handle is very
curious.’ As to parallel flakings with serrated edge, I have endeavored
to show (from a mechanical standpoint) that the refuse of the great
flint quarries points to a mode of working that must leave the dentilled
markings parallel, and the edges worked from, serrated. What Lubbock
speaks of as curious crimping on the edge of the handles is but the
natural result of the mode of working. I have examined these
Scandinavian dagger-handles, and find the same appearance on the blades
of large-size broken piercers, numbers of which I have found among the
rubbish, picked up, examined, and thrown away as imperfect specimens.
Some of them have a spread, flat end or handle of over one and a half
inches, with nearly square blades, evidently having been worked by down
pressure from the edges corresponding to the spread end, these
forty-five degrees flakes meeting form angles and produce the square.
The interlocking of the flakes at their meeting causes the crimped
appearance, in some cases not unlike a row of beads, very beautiful, but
not made with any such view, but simply the natural result of the mode
of working.

“Here also are found massive flakes or chips of fine-grained quartzite,
that teach another lesson to a seeking practical mechanic, nosing about
among the accumulated refuse. These flakes are often rough on one face,
showing them to be an outside scale from the stone; occasionally,
fragments of large flat implements that have been classed as
agricultural (hoes or spades). These fragments have not been broken by
want of skill in the workman, but from undiscovered seams in the stone
that did not show until the outer surface was thrown off. None of these
fragments shows any sign of use; in fact, some of them have not been
wrought to an edge. I have several specimens of hoes from the same ridge
beyond the settlement where it would naturally be cultivated, that from
their highly polished working ends show long use. The lesson is that
they are not made from great flakes, but rather represent the core from
which flakes have been thrown off. Finished hoes and spades frequently
have portions of natural stone partings that have not been worked off,
and show them to have been worked from thin slabs. These slabs are a
metamorphic thin bedded sandstone, belonging to what our state
geologist, Professor A. H. Worthen, calls the Chester group. They occur
near the Saline, about eight miles above the flaking-ground, in an
upheaval that has brought them to the surface with the upturned edges of
the carboniferous limestone through which the salt springs flow. This is
probably the source whence this quartzite was obtained, as slabs from
one inch to two inches thick are found there; but there are many other
locations stretching across Southern Illinois to the Mississippi River
where they also occur.

[Illustration:

FIG. 50. (S. 1–2.) War or triangular points; straight and concave
bases. Material: quartz, chert, obsidian, argillite, jasper, and
porphyry. Phillips Academy collection. (See page 86.)
]

“It is the large agricultural implements that I refer to as having been
made from quartzite slabs, some of which are as much as sixteen inches
long by six inches and seven inches wide at the spadeblade end. There
are many smaller specimens of the same form and character that have been
regularly flaked from chert, white waxy quartz, yellow and brown jasper,
that do not exceed six or seven inches in length, their working ends
highly polished by long use in digging. It is the large hoes and spades
flaked from quartzite slabs that to me are evidence of a much higher
degree of intelligence and skill than the most highly-finished spear-
and arrow-points evince. Take an edge view of one of these large spades,
and observe how accurately straight and free from wind the edge has been
carried entirely around the implement, the flattening of one side and
rounding the other; then observe that the long, flat, very slightly
depressed, flakes have been thrown off at right angles to the edge, even
to those curving around its digging or cutting end, which appear to have
radiated from a common centre. If these flakes have been thrown off by
blows so struck and directed as to preserve the cleanly lined edges, as
the operator had carried them in his mind, a skill must have been
acquired that we cannot approach.

“In all the experiments that I have tried with a hammer, whether of
stone, steel, soft iron, or copper, they have failed to produce the
desired result; the seat of the flake is more conchoidal, shorter and
deeper depressed, whereas the direct percussive pressure throws off the
shape of flake that we find has been done in making these spades. If
this mode has been resorted to, it necessarily required considerable
ingenuity in devices for holding the stone slab firmly, while the
pressure was being applied in the right direction. The wooden clamp
described by Catlin may have been used. The simplest device that occurs
to me that will answer the purpose is a block of wood planted in the
ground, with its end grain up, cut on top into steps, the lower step
having grooves parallel with the rise of the upper step; in one of these
grooves the edge of the implement is placed, its back resting against
the edge of the higher step as represented by the dotted lines showing
the form of a spade. (See Fig. 18.) When in this position, presenting
the proper angle to the operator, a man holds it firmly while another
applies the pressure. A lower step and the back edge of the top are
hollowed out to receive the work, while its lower end rests in an
indentation in the lower step. In this manner a spade can be firmly held
while its cutting end is being flaked. I do not present this as a mode
that was practiced, but as a device that answers the purpose, and I
judge to be within the capacity of the ancient flint-workers, of whom
there is nothing left but their chips and finished work.

“Let any one experiment with a bone point in chipping flint; he will
soon discover the value of a dry bone, a bone free from grease that will
hold to its work without slipping, a bone with sufficient hardness to
resist abrasion, a bone of strength to bear the pressure, and he will
value such a pointed bone, and will understand why, with such a bone,
John Smith’s ancient arrow-point maker ‘valued his above price, and
would not part with it.’ I have been informed that the modern Indians
free their flaking-bones from grease by burying them in moistened clay
and wood ashes, not unlike the common practice of our housewives to
remove grease-spots from their kitchen floors.

[Illustration:

FIG. 51. (S. 2–5.) Triangular, or war points and knives. Implements
with straight, concave, and convex bases. S. D. Mitchell, Ripon,
Wisconsin.
]

“The hunter or trapper described to me a mode still in practice among
the remote Indians of making flakes by lever pressure combined with
percussion, that is more philosophical and a better mechanical
arrangement than by the use of the flaking-staff, as described by
Catlin. Fig. 22 shows the manner of utilizing a standing tree with
spreading roots for this purpose; a flattened root makes a firm seat for
the stone, a notch cut into the body of a tree the fulcrum for the
lever; either a pointed stick is placed on the point of the stone where
the flake is to be split from it, its upper end resting against the
under side of the lever, or a bone or horn point let into and secured to
the lever takes the place of this stick. When the pressure is brought to
bear, by the weight of the operation, on the long end of the lever, a
second man with a stone, mall, or heavy club strikes a blow on the upper
side of the lever, directly over the pointed stick or horn point, and
the flake is thrown off.

[Illustration:

FIG. 52. (S. 1–1.) Knife with curved sides or edges. This form seems
more specialized than other types under Class I, sub-type A′. Dr. T.
B. Stewart, Lockhaven, Pennsylvania.
]

“Lubbock, in ‘Prehistoric Times,’ illustrated the Eskimo scraper as used
at the present time in preparing skins. When we consider the close
proximity of the flint workshop to the great salt licks on the Saline
River, the flowing salt springs, the deeply worn buffalo paths still to
be seen after having been subject to the destructive work of cultivation
by the plow for more than a generation, where skins by the thousands
must have been dressed, it is not surprising that the many chert flakes,
that have been split off with too great a curvature of their flat sides
in their length to admit of being chipped into arrow-points, should have
been utilized for scrapers, many of which are the exact facsimile of
what Lubbock has illustrated as the Eskimo and others of the European
type, of which he says: ‘It is curious, that while these spoon-shaped
scrapers are so common in Europe, they are very rare, if indeed they
occur at all, in North America south of the Eskimo region.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 53. (S. 1–2.) Translucent scraper made of chalcedony. Length, 9
inches; greatest width, 5 inches. Found near Lake St. John, Quebec.
In Toronto University collection, collected by H. Montgomery.
]

“I think it most probable, from their close resemblance to refuse flakes
and chips, they were overlooked by early collectors. In the great game
districts of the West, both in flint workshops and among the waste of
Indian settlements, they are much more abundant than arrow-heads, or any
other implements, with the exception of the small flint knives.

“It is also in these game districts that what is known as the
‘bevel-edge arrow-points’ are found, that have been a subject of much
discussion as to their use. (See Fig. 21.) Foster says of the one he has
illustrated: ‘The specimen represented is from Professor Cox’s
collection, and the two edges are symmetrically beveled, as if to give
it a rotary motion.’ I have met many others that accept this idea,
unmindful of the fact that a ship is not steered at its stem, but by the
rudder at its stern, and an arrow is not directed or held to its course
by its point, but by the feather at the butt end of its shaft; and if a
rotary motion was required, it would naturally be given by placing the
feathers spirally around the shaft. The broad flat sides of these
beveled points would neutralize any effect from the short bevels in
passing through the air.

“I have heard it urged that they were reamers, and that the uniform
bevel being in one direction, to cut as reamers they would have to be
turned to the left, or, as our workmen say, ‘against the sun.’ From this
it has been argued that the people who used them belonged to a
left-handed race. The direction and uniformity in the bevels is to me
evidence of exactly the reverse. Among all the points we find they are
the simplest and easiest to form by chipping when laid on their flat.
Nothing but the down pressure of the flaker is required to separate a
chip from a flat at a forty-five-degree angle. Suppose a flake that had
been roughly shaped held flat on a block of wood by the fingers of the
left hand, the tool in the right hand chipping from the point to the
broad end by direct down pressure; then by turning the flake over and
working the other edge in the same manner, we have in a centre
cross-section a form resembling a long-stretched rhomboid with sharp
cutting serrated edges at the acute angles.

“With the wooden bow and arrow arose the necessity for an arrow-point
harder than wood. If bone was used, the pebble scraper was essential.
The river drift or gravel bars, when subjected to the grinding and
crushing action of drift-logs or rolling boulders, would furnish many
suggestive forms and shapes that a little ingenuity would apply, and out
of which would naturally grow the art of flaking.

[Illustration:

FIG. 54. (S. 1–1.) Long implement, convex base, sides almost straight.
E. E. Baird, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 55. (S. about 1–5.) A group of knives typical of central Ohio. J.
A. Rayner collection, Piqua, Ohio.
]

“The streets of Paducah, Kentucky, are paved with partly rounded,
angular, silicious gravel, mostly of jasper. Seeing heaps of this ready
for spreading, I was struck by the many forms, mostly highly
water-polished, that if found on a flaking-ground would pass for refuse
flakes and rubbish left by the workmen.

“On inquiry I was informed that this coarse gravel was from banks on the
Tennessee River above the ordinary overflows. I selected many forms that
any archæologist would pronounce to be the work of man.

[Illustration:

FIG. 56. (S. 1–2.) Concave base, but shoulders so pronounced as to be
almost barbs. E. E. Baird collection, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
]

“A heavy wagon, loaded with hogsheads of tobacco, drawn by five or six
yoke of oxen, passed over the fresh-spread gravel with a sharp,
crushing, grinding sound. On examining the wheel tracks I was surprised
to find the slight impression the iron tire had made on the surface
stones. They had been pressed aside from the wheels, leaving a slight
rut, those under the wheels compressed together, but very little broken;
not sufficient to account for the sharp, crackling noise made as the
wagon wheels passed over them. On examining the effect from the tread of
the wheels to the old road-bed, a depth of about six inches, I found
most of the larger gravel stones under the top layer split, some into
flakes, the fractures in various directions, some crossing others. This
spread from the width of the wheel-tires to about three times as wide on
the old road-bed. Many of the fresh fractures presented the forms and
appearance of genuine cores, and would be mistaken for the work of man.
It was a beautiful illustration of the effect of pressure on small
points of contact. Our lady friends, often inveterate iced-tea drinkers,
when they find a lump of ice too large for their glass, will, with a
common toilet-pin between thumb and finger, press its point into the
ice, tap its head with the handle of a case-knife, or give it a click
with a thimble. The cohesion is destroyed and the ice splits with just
such a fracture as is made by impulsive point pressure on the more
tenacious and refractory chert.

“These Paducah observations led to considerable investigation as to the
action of lodged drift-logs on gravel bars, and finally to an experiment
that I should recommend the Smithsonian Institution to try on more
extensive scale than I was able to.

“I filled a metal cylinder with pebbles of various sizes and shapes,
brought a pressure by a screw on them through a plunger; immediately a
crepitating sound was heard, which as the pressure increased became
sharper and louder, at times almost explosive, as the interstices became
filled with broken fragments, producing side pressure and cross
fractures. The sound became more confused and died away. On emptying the
cylinder, the result was many representations of the rude implements
found in the drift.”

So much for Sellars’s observations. I consider them remarkable.

* * * * *

A series of papers entitled, “Arrows and Arrow-makers,” appeared in the
_American Anthropologist_, vol. IV, 1891. Professor Holmes’s paper (p.
49) particularly refers to the manufacture of arrow-points, although
Drs. Wilson, Hoffman, and Hough, Captain Bourke, Professor Mason, and
Mr. Flint contributed papers relating to various phases of the arrow and
its use.

[Illustration:

FIG. 57. (S. 1–3.) Long, slender lance-heads. Material: fine yellow
chert. H. M. Braun’s collection, East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

I quote at some length from Professor Holmes, taking the liberty of
changing his numbers to suit the numerical order of figures in this
book:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 58. (S. 1–2.) A beautiful knife from a grave near Sebago, Maine.
Material: porphyry, finely chipped. A. E. Marks’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 59. (S. 2–3.) A beautiful knife of quartzite from near Albany,
Georgia. H. F. McIntosh’s collection.
]

“In most cases the shaping operations carried on in the quarry can be
followed out with reasonable certainty. On all sites where the raw
material was extensively worked, series of forms can be secured
illustrating every stage of the morphology. These series begin with the
amorphous mass or natural shape, and pass through a succession of
modifications, ending in the rude blade or blank. The making and
collecting of flakes and fragments to be carried away in an unshaped
condition, although undoubtedly carried on in all quarries and upon
sites of other sources of raw material, leave little or no refuse that
can be studied to advantage.

“Large masses in quarries or on simple shop-sites were reduced by means
of rude hammers with or without halting. Fire was often employed as an
auxiliary in this work. Approximate masses were reduced to more definite
shapes by a succession of free-hand blows. The first step in the shaping
of an implement from a boulder is illustrated in Fig. 14. In this work
the free-hand blow is employed for the reason that no other method would
be efficacious. Fig. 23 illustrates the position in which the partially
shaped mass must be held after its margins have become too sharp to be
split by a blow directly upon the edge.

“When the incipient implement became too attenuated or fragile to
withstand the blows necessary to flaking without imminent danger of
breaking, other methods had to be employed. The statement has been made
by some writers that arrow-points are produced by simple percussion, the
hammers being reduced in size to correspond with the increasing
fragility of the object worked. This process, however, must be
exceptional.

“Instances are recorded in which indirect percussion—that is, the use of
a mallet and punch—was employed in removing flakes intended to be shaped
by pressure. Two varieties of indirect percussion are illustrated in
Figs. 28 and 29. The first is practiced by the Wintuns of California and
other tribes. The drawing is made from a very careful description by B.
B. Redding. The second is derived from the observations of George
Catlin. According to Catlin, the point is sometimes carried to a finish
by the indirect stroke, two persons being employed in the operation, as
shown in Fig. 29. As a rule, however, the method of manipulation was
changed at the proper stage from percussion to pressure.

[Illustration:

FIG. 60. (S. 1–2.) A ceremonial flint knife in original handle from
the northwest coast. Material: reddish flint. Found by “a whaler”
many years ago and now in the Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts.
]

“The blanks from the quarries—the roughed-out blades and selected
flakes, as well as similar products from all varieties of sites—had
acquired such outline, attenuation, sharpness of edge, and bevel when
the change from percussion to pressure took place that the gentler
method would be operative. It is probable that in many cases the work
was transferred from operatives skilled in the blocking-out to others
especially skilled in shaping by pressure; but it is also pretty certain
that nearly every hunter was able, in case of necessity, to shape his
own arrow-points, howsoever roughly, from the raw material.

“The flaking of stone, and especially that part of it relating to the
making of arrow-points, has very generally been regarded as a great
mystery and is often spoken of as a lost art; but the art is still
practiced by many of our aboriginal tribes, and it appears that almost
any one who desires can by a little systematic practice do the work. Of
course to acquire great skill much practice is necessary, but the
methods are for the most part so well known and so simple that the
mantle of mystery no longer enshrouds them.

“When pressure is first suggested as an adequate means of flaking hard
stones, doubt is usually felt as to its competency, and when it is
stated that the tool used is not of metal or of stone, but of bone or
ivory, incredulity is usually expressed; but the test is easily made.

“A blank form, or a flake having the approximate shape, is held firmly
between the fingers and thumb of the left hand. A firm piece of bone,
having a rather thin edge or angle like that of a three-cornered file,
is taken in the right hand and set upon the sharp edge of the stone and
at right angles to it, so firmly that a slight cut or notch is made in
the bone, then with a quick, firm movement of the right hand, met by a
similar movement of the left, the bone is made to move across the edge
of the stone (Fig. 30), in doing which it takes with it a flake, varying
in length, width, and depth with the skill and power of the workman, the
nature of the stone, etc. A rapid repetition of this operation,
accompanied by a proper resetting of the tool, quickly reduces the
piece, if it works readily, to almost any desired outline. The position
and manner of holding may be changed, as shown in Fig. 32. In both cases
the hand holding the stone must be protected against cutting by the
sharp flakes by a piece of buckskin or leather. This is true of some of
the other cases illustrated.

[Illustration:

FIG. 61. (S. 1–2.) Irregular knives. Material: sugar quartz. S. D.
Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

“The same result may be obtained in various other ways, but always by
means of suddenly applied or spasmodic pressure. Numerous methods of
applying this pressure are known. The blank may be held down by the
fingers upon the edge of a table or board, as shown in Fig. 31, and the
point of the bone or of a bit of metal as well, held in the other hand,
may be set so as to catch the edge of the stone to a width corresponding
to that caught by the notched bone in the other position, when a quick
downward pressure upon the flaking-tool will remove the flake. Again, in
larger work, where greater force is required to remove the flakes, a
tool long enough to place against the arm or chest of the operator may
be used. In this way much additional force is thrown into the spasmodic
movement. Another device consists of a notched or forked bone or
pincers, which is set upon the sharp edge of the blank and given a
sudden twist, thus removing the flake. (Fig. 33.)”

* * * * *

There is a feature in the reduction of boulders to finished implements
in which it seems to me that Professor Holmes may be in error. Figs. 2,
3, and 5 to 23, and 28 to 41 show all the more important stages of
manufacture. Other figures present sufficient specimens to cover each
form of the implement, making every step from the rough boulder to
completed objects.

It is natural that the finished knife or spear-head should be less in
length and width than the ordinary boulder. But in following Professor
Holmes’s series to its logical conclusion I am impressed with the fact
that the finest specimens are much smaller and the blades are very much
smaller than the boulder. A certain amount of reduction in size must be
admitted. But on the other hand the worker in flint was very skillful.
He knew his material, he knew how to work it, and he was saving. He was
so skillful that he was able to reduce large, common, rough blades to
large finished knives or spear-heads, chipping from the sides and
throwing off flakes rather than reducing the length or breadth. While he
would to some extent reduce the two diameters, yet I do not believe that
small implements are the result of work upon large boulders. If in
chipping a large boulder, he discovered flaws, he would either discard
the whole object, or strike off that part available for use and make of
it a small implement. A large boulder worked into a large blade
represented a large implement when finished; and the small finished
implements were obtained from small boulders or blades, I firmly
believe.

[Illustration:

FIG. 62. (S. 1–3.) Knives with double edges and curved edges. Phillips
Academy collection. Localities, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois.
]

CHAPTER V
CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

TYPES WITHOUT STEMS

The complete classification of chipped implements was presented on pages
23 to 30 of this work. It is now my purpose to describe and illustrate
each form or type mentioned in the classification.

Therefore, we begin with types without stem, which are considered to be
knives and projectile points. I have referred to figures, in the
following table, in order that readers may have no difficulty in
distinguishing one type from another.

A. Without secondary chipping (knife flakes). (See Figs. 26 and 35.)

B. With secondary chipping (rougher knives). (See Figs. 44 and 46.)

1. Pointed at one end, base straight. (See Figs. 47, 50, and 58.)

2. Pointed at one end, base convex. (See Figs. 54 and 69.)

3. Pointed at one end, base concave. (See Figs. 50 and 56.)

4. Pointed at one end, sides convex. (See Figs. 55 and 74.)

5. Pointed at one end, one side convex, one side straight. (See Figs.
52 and 53.)

6. Pointed at both ends. (See Figs. 67 and 131.)

7. Decreasing diameter towards end, ends convex. (See Figs. 61 and
72.)

8. More or less oval, or circular. (See Figs. 72 and 75.)

Before I take up the large class cited above, I wish to state that in a
classification of flint implements much depends upon one’s point of
view. Some observers may classify according to whether the stem
contracts or expands. Others might adopt yet another form of
classification. There are some specimens that on classification because
of variation in the stem might be included along with more simple forms,
yet there are not a few which the Indian apparently specialized, which
he purposely made different from the others. These doubtless represent
individual fancy and should not be entered as types. Many specimens not
included by the committee in its classification seem to me to be types,
and I have therefore added such in subdivisions. These, I am firmly
convinced, are as representative type specimens as are the others that
have been entered. Along with these, illustrations of certain beautiful
flint implements are submitted herewith.

[Illustration:

FIG. 63. (S. 1–4.) Knives of various forms and material, from Maine
sites. Collection of E. T. Wing, South Portland, Maine.
]

Most investigators in archæology assume that man’s first stone
implements were palæolithic, or rude stone hatchets used without
handles, and through a long process of evolution was obtained the
leaf-shaped and later the shouldered and stemmed chipped objects, the
heads of arrows and spears. I am willing to accept the conclusions of
these observers, but while it is true the implements made by man passed
through regular process of evolution from the simple form to more
complicated and serviceable, yet it is undoubtedly true that many tribes
living in the past thousand years made use of as crude implements as
those of glacial times. In the same tribe were in use flint implements
of superior workmanship and high finish and rudely chipped objects as
well. The rudeness of an object is no evidence of its antiquity. The
locality, rather, is the deciding factor. All depends upon the position
in which the implement was found and the surrounding soil or gravel or
clay.

[Illustration:

FIG. 64. (S. 1–2.) Typical New Jersey knives. Material: black flint
and argillite. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New
Jersey.
]

We have remarked in the foregoing pages on types of implements assumed
to be very old. Independent of whether an implement is finished or
unfinished, thousands or hundreds of years old, it is susceptible of
classification. We find that chipped implements include all objects
worked from flint, chert, quartz, argillite, chalcedony, obsidian,
agatized wood, carnelian, jasper, rhyolite, etc. The range is from a
large flint agricultural implement to a minute arrow-point. This
division embraces everything from a block of quarry flint to a delicate,
perfect flint hairpin. Not excluding broken pottery, chipped objects are
more numerous in America than other artifacts. Classifications have been
made by Mr. Gerard Fowke and Dr. Thomas Wilson. With some changes the
Committee on Nomenclature accepted these classifications. However, I
have thought best to add numbers to the list, as I think that certain
types have been omitted.

[Illustration:

FIG. 65. (S. 1–2.) Types of Northern knives. Collection of F. M.
Caldwell, Wisconsin
]

Many insignificant bits of flint scales or chips show worked edges.
Hasty examination of a given amount of material from a village-site does
not give one adequate conception of the use to which ancient man put the
material. The savage was saving, the white man is extravagant.

[Illustration:

FIG. 66. (S. about 1–2.) One Tennessee disc, one drill, two scrapers,
and one small oval knife. C. Albee’s collection, Redrock, Montana.
]

Most persons familiar with the handiwork of prehistoric man agree that
when man began to use stone implements he selected such natural or
water-worn stones as required little work to make of them effective
weapons. Along the shores of a river or lake, about the foot of a cliff,
or on stony ground, he was apt to find fragments of rock broken by
natural agencies. Some of these had sharp edges, and it is quite likely
that his first knives and scrapers were flakes or spalls which served
him as crude implements. This theory has been worked out at length in
several publications and need not be repeated here. The chipped
implements themselves evince all kinds of workmanship; some are well
made, others appear to be either childish attempts or the work of
artisans unskilled in flint-chipping. Some are finished, others are
unfinished. Many an implement is open to question as to whether it is a
rude complicated form, or an unfinished object, and numbers of these
rude forms may be exceedingly old so far as we know; again some of the
finer implements are doubtless old.

[Illustration:

FIG. 67. (S. 1–2.) Lance-heads: obsidian, from California. H. P.
Hamilton collection.
]

In classifying flint implements it is generally conceded that the oval
form is the more simple, and Dr. Wilson’s classification begins with
these. While the Committee accepted, as stated previously, his scheme,
together with that of Mr. Fowke, yet it seems to me that a careful study
of the oval forms convinces one that many of them are unfinished, and
may have been intended for implements that would on completion be placed
in another class. Also, that many of the oval and circular forms are
thick and rough and do not appear to be implements. However, in the
classification it is best not to consider whether these objects are
finished or unfinished or for what purpose they were intended, but in my
descriptions I have separated those which appear to be implements from
those that do not. I have presented original specimens rather than
tracings as did Dr. Wilson.

The ordinary form of knife and the simplest form of projectile point is
shown in Fig. 44, collection of Mr. D. N. Kern. These specimens were
found in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, and are made of yellow jasper,
except the central one, which appears to be Flint Ridge stone. I have
selected this group as typical. They represent the first stage of
complete work after the turtleback or discs have been scaled to a proper
size. Some of these are knives, some may have been arrow-points, all
look old, and most of them fall in Class 1 B, although none of the bases
are concave.

Fig. 45 represents two rough knives which are just beyond the stage of
turtlebacks. Fig. 46 is taken from a large flake of flint detached while
chipping spades and other implements of unusual size on the site of the
Indian Territory quarries. This flake has been edged and used as a
knife.

The next stage in the evolution of the knife is shown in Fig. 47. These
objects will fall under type 1 B, some being pointed, some with base
convex, base straight, sides convex. The workmanship on these is better
than that exhibited in Fig. 44. They were all found near Allentown,
Pennsylvania, by Mr. Kern.

While these two illustrations are of Pennsylvania specimens, they are
typical of B, 1, forms whether the specimen came from California,
Georgia, or Wisconsin. I shall present in this work specimens from every
portion of the United States, but, of course, it would be impossible to
show all the type specimens of a given locality.

The pointed flint objects without stem are, for the most part,
triangular war points. The story of their use is so old, having been
printed in many publications, that it is only necessary to state that
these are called war points because there is no means of fastening them
securely to the arrow, and they became detached from the arrow when the
victim attempted to withdraw the shaft. But of these triangular points
there are such numbers and so many diversified forms, I have presented a
plate of thirty-one of them in Fig. 50, taken from the collection of
Phillips Academy Museum. These points are from the following
localities:—

Top row, from left to right; first three, banks of the Ohio River, Brown
County, Ohio; next, Indiana; concave base, Oregon; last two to right,
Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania.

Second row—First two, Oregon; next two, Natchez, Mississippi, Professor
E. H. Williams’s collection; next, Santa Anna, Texas; next two,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Third row—White quartz, Georgia and Virginia.

[Illustration:

FIG. 68. (S. 1–2.) Maine knives, and two spear-heads. Material: block
flint, porphyry, quartzite. A. E. Marks’s collection, Yarmouth,
Maine.
]

Fourth row—Two to the left from Massachusetts; central long one,
Illinois; four small ones to right, Willamette Valley, Oregon; three
small ones over these, from Natchez, Mississippi, Professor E. H.
Williams’s collection.

[Illustration:

FIG. 69. (S. 2–3.) Lance-head. Material: jasper. Stephen Van
Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 70. (S. 1–2.) Lance-head (?). Dudley A. Martin’s collection,
Duboistown, Pennsylvania.
]

In Fig. 51 I have shown the projectile points and knives without stems.
Some of these are clearly triangular arrow-points, others are knives
with flat bases or concave bases. The convex base, except in minute
projectile points, is rare. Most knives have straight or concave bases.

Some of the implements pointed out have one end straight, and the others
are beautiful specimens of aboriginal workmanship. Fig. 58 exhibits a
knife of porphyry, half-size, found by A.E. Marks, near Sebago, Maine.
This knife is one of similar types found in Maine graves, but is a
better specimen than the average.

[Illustration:

FIG. 71. (S. 1–2 to 1–3.) Lance-heads. Beautiful forms of art in
flint. Materials: argillite and jasper. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s
collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

Fig. 57 presents long, slender lance-heads, or possibly knives from Mr.
Braun’s collection, East St. Louis. The originals of these are about
three times the size of the figure. About East St. Louis is the famous
Cahokia Mound, with some thirty other mounds. The art in stone of this
region is very high, and some of the best implements in the country have
been found on either side of the Mississippi River, near the present
site of St. Louis.

Specimens pointed at both ends are more common on the Pacific Coast and
in the Colorado Valley than elsewhere in the United States. Some of the
large problematical forms in flint from Tennessee and Kentucky are of
this type.

Fig. 67 presents two pointed at either end. Some simpler forms are shown
in Fig. 55, and in groups of chipped objects of all kinds are some more
or less pointed at either end, notably Figs. 68 and 73.

[Illustration:

FIG. 72. (S. 2–5.) Wisconsin-Michigan types of knives and slightly
shouldered objects. S. D. Mitchell collection, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 73. (S. 1–2.) Five knives and two spear-heads. These are typical
Wisconsin objects of sugar quartz and argillite. The one to the left
has two ends and convex sides. The next, E 268, has a straight back
and a convex edge. It is a remarkable knife. The others are all
interesting specimens. Beloit College collection, Beloit, Wisconsin.
]

There are many knives irregular in form, and it is quite difficult to
select specimens having one side straight and the other convex, as
mentioned by the Nomenclature Committee. However, in Figs. 52, 61, and
65 are several knives having one side straight and the other convex; or
the sides may be irregular. It is difficult to classify the knives just
cited under an arbitrary rule on this account. Attention is particularly
called to these figures. Each one of these knives represents individual
fancy on the part of the owner, yet they are more serviceable than the
ordinary oval knife so common throughout the country. I would add to the
Committee’s classification, as deserving of a special place, knives so
chipped that they appear to have handles.

Fig. 65. From Central Wisconsin I illustrate six knives, two of which
have convex ends. The others are not as pronounced, and two of the
specimens show the first steps in shouldering or stemming. All that was
necessary to shoulder an implement was to chip a little on either side,
thus making a shoulder. The two specimens above and below the shouldered
object belong to the shoulder class, but as they are so slightly
shouldered I have left them in this illustration to emphasize the
observation.

Fig. 48. Typical Pennsylvania knives, from Dr. T. B. Stewart’s
collection, and Fig. 55, Mr. Rayner’s Ohio types, give the range in the
unstemmed objects that are not projectile points.

In all the number of flint implements that I have handled I have never
seen two that were exactly alike. Some of the triangular points have
almost the same form, but there are peculiarities in the chipping or in
the material, and the statement holds good that no two flint implements
are precisely uniform.

Some of the long, slender blades, either lances or knives, such as are
shown in Figs. 54, 57, and 71, are of superior workmanship, and may
represent objects belonging to the priests or the more prominent leaders
among ancient men.

As shedding some light on the use of such a knife, I was interested to
read, when studying the accounts of early Spanish explorers, 1530–1540,
to find a description of how such implements as are shown in Figs. 65,
66, and 67 were used in the Southwest. An ethnologist would have made
great sacrifices to have been with Cabeza De Vaca. In his narrative he
gives a description of a remarkable medicine-man. This man represented
the true Stone Age type; although what we have concerning him is but a
fragment, it is worthy of preservation in that it sheds light on the use
of certain large flint implements, and on practices of ancient
medicine-men.

[Illustration:

FIG. 74. (S. 1–3.) Long, lance-like objects of fine flint. From the
collection of B. H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky. The upper row is of
specimens found in a cache, Livingston county, Kentucky. The lower
ones are from various portions of the same state. Attention is
called to the beautiful character and the fine chipping exhibited in
these.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 75. (S. 1–4.) Flint disc, and knives of various forms. S. D.
Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin. These twelve objects show the range of
knives through that region fairly well.
]

“They said that a man wandered through the country whom they called
Badthing; he was small of body and wore a beard, and they never
distinctly saw his features. When he came to the house where they lived,
their hair stood up and they trembled. Presently a blazing torch shone
at the door, when he entered and seized whom he chose, and giving him
three great gashes in the side with a very sharp flint, the width of the
hand and two palms in length, he put his hand through them, drawing
forth the entrails, from one of which he would cut off a portion more or
less, the length of a palm, and throw it on the embers. Then he would
give three gashes to an arm, the second cut on the inside of an elbow,
and would sever the limb. A little after this, he would begin to unite
it, and putting his hands on the wounds, these would instantly become
healed. They said that frequently in the dance he appeared among them,
sometimes in the dress of a woman, at others in that of a man; that when
it pleased him he would take a _buhio_, or house, and lifting it high,
after a little he would come down with it in a heavy fall. They also
stated that many times they offered him victuals, but that he never ate;
they asked him whence he came and where was his abiding-place, and he
showed them a fissure in the earth and said that his house was there
below. These things they told us of, we much laughed at and ridiculed;
and they, seeing our incredulity, brought to us many of those they said
he had seized; and we saw the marks of the gashes made in the places
according to the manner they had described. We told them he was an evil
one, and in the best way we could, gave them to understand, that if they
would believe in God our Lord, and become Christians like us, they need
have no fear of him, nor would he dare to come and inflict those
injuries, and they might be certain he would not venture to appear while
we remained in the land. At this they were delighted and lost much of
their dread.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 76. (S. 1–2.) Oval knife, fine workmanship. Stephen Van
Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

Along with the types not stemmed are such specimens as are shown at the
bottom at the right of Fig. 77; possibly that one was a drill, but I
have included the three under the classification we have been
following—without stem, base straight, base convex and pointed. Yet
these typical Pacific Coast leaf-shaped artifacts are different from the
forms found East. In specimens with stems especially in the Susquehanna
and Delaware Valleys, and the greater part of the Mississippi Valley are
occasionally found chipped implements with straight sides and the points
sharply contracting. Some of these will be shown under the proper
divisions. This angular effect of the object is intentional and merits a
class by itself as much as do the objects which are classified according
to stem form alone. In Fig. 68 are beautiful specimens from Maine, Mr.
Marks’s collection. In these six we have the simple form of knife, well
chipped, the pointed knives, the oval and pointed knife, and the two
beautiful spear-heads, which, of course, come under a later
classification. The spear-head to the left is of that cloudy quartzite
approaching agate, which is also found in Arkansas and Wisconsin, and a
material of which some of the finest specimens in the United States have
been manufactured by our aborigines.

[Illustration:

FIG. 77. (S. 1–1.) Serrated obsidian points (or knives). Typical of
California artifacts. F. M. Gilham’s collection, Highland Springs,
California.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 78. Obsidian problematical chipped objects. Sizes and locality
stated on the specimens. Dr. H. M. Whelpley’s collection, St. Louis,
Missouri.
]

Figs. 72 and 75 represent the sub-class C, more or less circular. A
splendid example of the knife with square ends is shown at the left in
Fig. 73. Also a knife with one edge straight and the other convex is
shown in the same figure, and the specimen is labeled E 268. Fig. 72
marks the transition stage from the oval knife to the slightly stemmed
or shouldered spear-head. All these are Wisconsin specimens from Mr. S.
D. Mitchell’s collection and the collection of Beloit College.

Oval knives, or oval chipped objects, may range from minute specimens a
half an inch in length to magnificent problematical forms in obsidian
shown in Fig. 78. A few such as these have been found in ancient graves
or burial-places in California and Oregon. The workmanship on them is
not quite as fine as on the “ceremonial swords” from Tennessee shown in
Plates 161 and 162, but obsidian was more easily chipped than Tennessee
chert. An inspection of the Tennessee objects referred to and these
immense obsidian blades, and a comparison between them and the objects
found elsewhere in the world, proves that the American aborigine did not
have a superior on this globe in art forms of neolithic types.

Fig. 75 illustrates the circular discs, and the almost circular knives,
and by way of comparison is added the oval knife.

Discs may be material in convenient form for exchange or transportation,
or to be worked down into implements. Hopewell discs shown in Fig. 42
are of this character.

The smaller discs and circular knives may also have been scrapers, thus
representing a double purpose. Figs. 59 and 60 show the more beautiful
oval knives, one of which is mounted in its original handle. Fig. 60 was
brought down from the Northwest coast to the Peabody Museum at Salem,
Massachusetts, many years ago.

CHAPTER VI
CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

PROJECTILE POINTS WITH STEMS EXPANDING FROM BASE OR WITH SIDES PARALLEL

This division embraces large numbers of projectile points which served
as shaft-heads to spears and lances. The triangular war points mentioned
and illustrated in a previous chapter were also made use of as
projectile points. But, as a rule, arrow-heads were notched, in order
that they might be more securely fastened to the shaft.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the terms employed
in these descriptions, I have illustrated herewith (Fig. 79) one of the
best spear-points in the Phillips Academy collection at Andover. The
terms accepted as descriptive of the various portions of the arrow-head
are taken from Mr. Fowke’s arrow-head nomenclature in the Bureau of
American Ethnology _Report_, 1891–2, page 143. Mr. Fowke’s terms have
been generally accepted. I have presented a different specimen from the
one he shows and have added the term “serration.”

We have passed from the class of implements supposed to be simple forms
to the beginning of more complicated ones. The Committee gave first,
stems with straight sides, the bases of which might be straight,
concave, or convex. In the South the flint implements which exhibit a
narrow base and expanding stem predominate. But specimens in which the
sides of the stem are parallel or straight are not uncommon. Perhaps
more of the “stem with sides parallel” type are found on the tributaries
of the Columbia River and in Texas and California.

In my illustrations it is difficult to procure specimens all of one
type, and on some plates the predominating shapes are of the type
described. Yet here and there will be seen objects which belong in
another class. As a matter of course, “The Stone Age” describes few
objects that are not imperishable material; wooden shafts and weapons,
fabrics, whether skin or basketry, have long since resolved themselves
into dust. However, a few words of description concerning bows and
arrows themselves will not be amiss.

[Illustration:

FIG. 79. (S. 1–1.) Material: white flint, Southern Ohio. A, point; B,
edge; C, face; D, bevel; E, blade; F, tang; G, stem; H, base; I,
notch; K, neck; M, barb or shoulder; N, serration. Phillips Academy
collection.
]

The bows and arrows of the Indians are numerous in our larger museums.
Yet, with here and there an exception, these are of the past sixty
years, a few are one hundred and fifty or more years old, though now and
then one may observe a bow in a European museum dating back two or three
centuries. I have not presented figures of the bows and have given but
one of the arrows. Dr. Pepper found a bundle of ancient arrows in Pueblo
Bonito, a prehistoric ruin in northern New Mexico. It lay at
considerable depth in one of the lower rooms, rubbish-filled at the time
of his exploration. There can be no question as to the prehistoric
origin of these arrows. They were all tipped with obsidian points, well
gummed and sinewed to the shafts.

[Illustration:

FIG. 80. (S. 1–5.) Buffalo skull with long, slender arrow penetrating
the left frontal bone. Found on the Great Plains in Iowa. Collection
of the Historical Department of the State of Iowa.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 81. (S. 1–2.) Human skull from California, with an arrow-point
embedded in the frontal bone causing the death of the subject. H. K.
Deisher, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

Any reader may be able to obtain a good idea of the types prevailing
among tribes the past sixty years if he will inspect the museum
collections in his nearest city, for there are now public museums in
upwards of seventy cities in the United States.

Professor Mason, Dr. Hough, and other gentlemen made a study of bows and
arrows in the Smithsonian Institution. After many years of observation,
Professor Mason prepared an article for the “Handbook of American
Indians” and portions of it are herewith presented.

ARROWS, BOWS, AND QUIVERS

“The bow and arrow was the most useful and universal weapon and
implement of the chase possessed by the Indians north of Mexico for
striking or piercing distant objects.

[Illustration:

FIG. 82. (S. 1–1.) Two without barbs and shoulders. The central one
but for the notches would be of “expanding from the base” type.
Material: dark chert (to right), argillite (left). Dr. T. B. Stewart
collection, Lockhaven, Pennsylvania.
]

“_Arrows._ A complete Indian arrow is made up of six parts: Head, shaft,
foreshaft, shaftment, feathering, and nock. These differ in material,
form, measurement, decoration, and assemblage, according to individuals,
locality, and tribe.... In the Southwest a sharpened foreshaft of hard
wood serves for the head. Arctic and Northwest coast arrows have heads
of ivory, bone, wood, or copper, as well as of stone; elsewhere they are
more generally of stone, chipped or polished. Many of the arrow-heads
from those two areas are either two-pronged, three-pronged, or
harpoon-shaped. The head is attached to the shaft or foreshaft by
lashing with sinew, by riveting, or with gum....

[Illustration:

FIG. 83. (S. 1–1.) Pennsylvania types. Many expanding from base.
Materials: jasper, quartz, black flint. Deisher collection,
Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

“Arrow-shafts of the simplest kinds are reeds, canes, or stems of wood.
In the Arctic region they are made of driftwood or are bits of bone
lashed together, and are rather short, owing to the scarcity of
material. The foreshaft is a piece of ivory, bone, or heavy wood. Among
the Eskimo foreshafts are of bone or ivory on wooden shafts; in
California, of hard wood on shafts of pithy or other light wood; from
California across the continent to Florida, of hard wood on cane shafts.
The shaftments in most arrows are plain; but on the Western coast they
are painted with stripes for identification. The Plains Indians and the
Jicarillas cut shallow grooves lengthwise down their arrow-shafts,
called ‘lightning marks,’ or ‘blood grooves,’ and also are said by
Indians to keep the shaft from warping (Fletcher) or to direct the
flight. The feathering is an important feature in the Indian arrow,
differing in the species of birds, the kind and number of feathers, and
in their form, length, and manner of setting....

[Illustration:

FIG. 84. (S. 2–7.) Obsidian arrow-head lashed with sinews, from
Arizona—probably Apache and of the ’50’s; there is blood dried in
the grooves. Drawn by J. H. Richardson.
]

“_Bows._ The bows of the North Americans are quite as interesting as
their arrows. The varied environments quickened the inventive faculty
and produced several varieties. They are distinguished by the materials
and the parts, which are known as back, belly, wings, grip, nocks, and
string. The varieties are as follows: (1) Self-bow, made of one piece;
(2) compound bow, of several pieces of wood, bone, or horn lashed
together; (3) sinew-backed bow, a bow of driftwood or other brittle
wood, reinforced with cord of sinew wrapped many times about it
lengthwise, from wing to wing; (4) sinew-lined bow, a self-bow, the back
of which is further strengthened with sinew glued on. In some cases bows
were decorated in colors. The varieties characterizing the culture areas
are distinguished as follows:—

“(1) Arctic. Compound bows in the East, very clumsy, owing to scarcity
of material; the grip may be of wood, the wings of whale’s ribs or bits
of wood from whalers. In the West excellent sinew-backed bows were made
on bodies of driftwood. Asiatic influence is apparent in them.[3]

“(2) Northern Athabascan. Long, straight bows of willow or birch, with
wooden wrist-guards projecting from the belly.

“(3) St. Lawrence and Eastern United States. Self-bows of ash,
second-growth hickory, osage orange (bois d’arc), oak, or other hard
wood.

“(4) Gulf States. Long bows, rectangular in section, of walnut or other
hard wood.

“(5) Rocky Mountains. (1) Self-bow of osage orange or other hard wood;
(2) a compound bow of several strips of buffalo horn lashed together and
strengthened.

“(6) North Pacific coast. Bows with rounded grip and flat wings, usually
made of yew or cedar.

“(7) Fraser-Columbia region. Similar to number 6, but with wings much
shorter and the nocks curved sharply outward.

“(8) Interior basin. A long slender stick of rude form; many are
strengthened by means of a sinew lining on the back and cross-wrappings.

“(9) California. Like number 7, but neatly lined with sinew and often
prettily decorated.

“(10) Southwest. Like number 8, but seldom sinew-lined (Navaho).

[Illustration:

FIG. 85. (S. 1–2.) All expanding from base. Probably knife-blades for
hafting—because of curved edge. H. K. Deisher’s collection,
Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

“Small painted bows are used much in ceremony, especially by the
Pueblos, who deposit them in shrines. In the south part of this area
long cottonwood bows with cross-lashing are employed by Yuman and Piman
tribes. The Jicarillas make a Cupid’s bow, strengthened with bands of
sinew wrapping.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 86. (S. 1–1.) Specialized quartzite blades, probably in the main
projectile points, from Potomac village-sites.
]

We have observed that the form of bow and arrow varies among different
tribes. Probably similar variations obtained in ancient times.
Arrow-heads have been often found embedded in human bones. A prehistoric
specimen was unearthed in 1869 from an Indian mound in the vicinity of
Fort Wadsworth, Dakota, by Surgeon A. T. Comfort, of the United States
Army. It consists of a human lumbar vertebra with a small arrow-point of
white quartz embedded and incrusted in it. The vertebra is covered with
a new bony formation, showing that the wounded man survived the injury
for some months at least.

[Illustration:

FIG. 87. (S. 1–2.) Expanding stem, serrated edges. Georgia forms. H.
F. McIntosh’s collection, Albany, Georgia.
]

An ancient aboriginal skull from Henderson County, Illinois, contributed
to the National Museum by M. Tandy, had a hole in the squamosal bone on
the left side, inserted in which, when found and received by the museum,
was a stone arrow-point of the perforator or drill type.

Fig. 84 is a drawing of an obsidian-pointed Indian arrow found in
Arizona after a fight between Apaches and miners. The specimen was
picked up some fifty years ago. It is grooved as were most arrows, and
particles of dried blood still adhere to the shaft, and may be observed
in the grooves. The feathers are cut off in order that it might be
withdrawn, without enlarging the wound. Miss M. Gorton owns this
interesting specimen.

[Illustration:

FIG. 88. (S. 1–2.) Part of a cache found near Salem, Massachusetts.
Material: porphyry. Peabody Museum collection, Salem, Massachusetts.
]

It is quite apparent that flint implements in which the stem expands
from the base are more common in the West and South than in the North,
and yet great numbers of both types (stem expanding and stem
contracting) are very numerous. It is quite easy to classify most of
them on the form of the stem. But others have almost no stem, the barbs
being cut in the shoulders of what were at first leaf-shaped, or oval
implements. There are not many stems which are concave in the base.
Figs. 86 and 99 illustrate several expanding from base types.

Fig. 86 presents seven specimens from the Chesapeake, Virginia, and
Maryland region. One of these has a straight base, six of them stem
expanding, and all are typical quartzite specimens of the region.

Fig. 112 presents some Southern types from Georgia, North and South
Carolina, in the Andover collection. The white quartz and three of the
rhyolite specimens have stem expanding, but in some of the small barbed
objects the stem contracts. Readers are requested to note the range in
material in the South, as these twenty-two specimens show eight
variations of four dominating materials, quartz, rhyolite, chert,
argillite. Fig. 92, from Professor Holmes’s paper on the
Potomac-Chesapeake tidal implements, presents three specimens expanding
from base and three contracting. It will be observed that these forms
were worked out from leaf-shaped objects, approximately indicated by the
dotted lines.

[Illustration:

FIG. 89. (S. 3–4.) Finely chipped object of unusual form from
Kentucky. Material: concretionary flint. F. Wetherington’s
collection, Paducah, Kentucky.
]

As one studies implements and puts to a severe working test the
classification, it becomes clear that while an object may have an
expanding stem, yet there are other features which overshadow the mere
fact that the stem expands. Fig. 96, from Mr. Mitchell’s collection,
shows a specimen in which the point is curved or turned, and the base
beveled off sharply to an angle. The same is true of Fig. 93, from Dr.
Winship’s collection, Minnesota, only that the base is square and there
are no shoulders or barbs. Fig. 89, from Mr. Wetherington’s collection,
Kentucky, is another type similar to these I illustrate, and all three
are beautifully worked implements of the first grade, and it would be
difficult to excel them anywhere in the world.

[Illustration:

FIG. 90. (S. 1–2.) New Jersey types found near Orange, New Jersey. The
central one is weathered rhyolite. The others are jasper and chert.
The two lower ones have prominent stems, and show broad blades. They
are very angular. This form is common in Georgia, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, but rare elsewhere. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s
collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

In the entire West are many small delicate points made of semi-precious
stones. A plate of these is shown in Fig. 97, from Mr. Hamilton’s
collection, Wisconsin. Here we have the triangular points, oval knives,
the expanding at base, the slightly barbed, and the deeply barbed. Figs.
98 and 99 present interesting and yet common types of specimens from a
given locality. These range from the triangular to the expanding base
and the contracting base; in Fig. 99 a rare specimen having four notches
is shown. Fig. 100 presents typical Connecticut forms. The one to the
left is a knife. Fig. 102, from Mr. Arnold’s collection, Albany, New
York, presents nine beautiful specimens, in nearly all of which the stem
is straight. The barbs are very long and wing-like, as in the case of
many obsidian, agate, and carnelian points from the Northwest.

Fig. 80, of a buffalo skull found in North Dakota many years ago, and
belonging to the Historical Department of the State of Iowa, illustrates
the penetrating power of the flint arrow-head. This is a long, slender
arrow driven into the skull, so that the point penetrated the brain.
Fig. 81, a skull from California, Mr. H. K. Deisher’s collection,
Pennsylvania, illustrates a human skull in which an arrow-point was
driven into the brain through the frontal bone over the left eye. I have
seen in museums human vertebræ and other bones which were pierced by
flint arrow-heads. Such may be observed in the Ohio State Archæological,
the Peabody, and United States National Museum collections.

In the _American Anthropologist_ for 1901 Dr. Thomas Wilson wrote an
article entitled “Arrow-Wounds.” This is deserving of preservation and
will enable students to realize what an important factor the arrow was
in ancient times. I omit all of Dr. Wilson’s remarks on discoveries of
human remains in foreign countries in which arrow-points were embedded,
and quote a portion of that which relates to the United States:—

“The skull of an ancient Indian man of advanced age, originally received
by the Smithsonian Institution from Dr. L. G. Yates, of Alameda County,
California, and transferred to the Army Medical Museum, exhibits a wound
made by a long flint arrow-point which penetrated the left orbit.

[Illustration:

FIG. 91. (S. 1–2.) Fine broad spear-head. Material: brown flint.
Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

“The arrow-point exhibited belongs to the class usually called
perforators, or drills, but in this instance it was used as an
arrow-point.

“Two specimens of prehistoric flint arrow-points or spear-heads found
inserted in human bones were sent to the National Museum by Dr. John E.
Younglove, of Bowling Green, Kentucky. One had pierced the pelvic bone
and the other is still inserted in the head of a human femur. The
material of both points is the black or brown lustreless pyromachic
flint, common to the country in which it was found. The specimens came
from a cavern about four miles northeast of Bowling Green, and an equal
distance from Old Station.

[Illustration:

FIG. 92. (S. 1–1.) Showing relation of specialized leaf-blade
implements of various kinds to the original blade.
]

“Most of the specimens of arrows and arrow-wounds in the Army Medical
Museum pertain to modern Indian warfare. The arrow-points of iron or
steel show, by actual experience and ocular demonstration, the effect of
these projectiles upon bones, the endurance of the patient, and the
skill of the surgeon; consequently they are of considerable interest.
They also show that none of the arrow-points were poisoned.

[Illustration:

FIG. 93. (S. 1–2.) Quartzite knife. P. D. Winship’s collection, Park
Rapids, Minnesota.
]

“An attack was made by Indians near Pecos River, Texas, September 1,
1870, in which one man was killed, one escaped, and the patient received
an arrow-wound in the head and three gunshot flesh-wounds. Seven days
later he was admitted to the hospital at Fort Concho, Texas, having
traveled part of the distance on foot. He complained of soreness from
the gunshot wounds, but spoke lightly of the ‘scratch’ made by the arrow
on the side of his head. The gunshot wounds healed, but cerebral
complications developed. An effort was made to reopen the wound in the
temple, which proved unsuccessful on account of the resistance of the
temporal bones, and doubt as to the cause of the existing symptoms
prevented the surgeon from making a free incision. The case terminated
fatally September 19, and the autopsy revealed the real injury to have
been caused by the entry of the iron arrow-head half an inch from the
external incision.

“A Mexican was killed by an arrow in an Indian fight seventy-five miles
northwest of Fort Concho, Texas, February 22, 1868. He was treated by W.
M. Notson, Assistant Surgeon, United States Army, who reported:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 94. (S. 1–1.) Seven chipped objects. In the centre is a peculiar
object with wide shoulders and angular sides. This form is found in
the East, but is not common. Its purpose has never been
satisfactorily explained. The object to the right with straight
sides and point made angular is also seldom found save east of the
Mississippi River. Why it was made in this form is not known.
Material: jasper. H. K. Deisher’s collection, Kutztown,
Pennsylvania.
]

“‘When I opened the skull I found an incision extending clear across the
opposite hemisphere, touching the dura mater just above the tentorium.
The dura mater was stained, but I could find no mark on the skull. When
I made the _post mortem_ I found the arrow-head in the brain. When the
patient was hit, he seized the arrow-shaft with both hands and pulled it
out, then dropped and remained unconscious until he died, about six
hours after.’

“Private John Krumholz, Company H, 22d Infantry, was wounded at Fort
Sally, South Dakota, June 3, 1869, by an arrow, which, entering at the
outer canthus of the left eye, penetrated the skull two inches, and is
supposed to have passed between the skull and the dura mater. The
operation for extraction, which was immediately performed, consisted in
sawing nearly through the skull with a Hey’s saw, in close proximity to
the arrow. Recovery was rapid, the soldier returning to duty later.

“Private Snowden, 14th Infantry, was one of a party surprised by
Apaches, March 22, 1866, while en route from Maricopa Wells to Fort
Goodwin, Arizona. He was struck in the back of the head by an arrow,
which penetrated the skull, and nine days later reached Maricopa Wells,
weak and fatigued, but unimpaired in intelligence. He believed the
arrow-point to be within the cranium, since, in pulling on the shaft
after receiving the injury, nothing but the shaft responded. The usual
treatment was being given with success, when in examining the scalp
there was discovered a small tumefaction over the parietal side of the
left occipito-parietal suture. Pressure caused the issue of a small
quantity of serous matter from the cicatrix of the arrow-wound. This was
enlarged, and a probe passed into it was made to feel along the fissure
in the bone, when it struck something metallic. The cranium was laid
bare by a crucial incision, and with considerable difficulty a hoop-iron
arrow-head one and three fourths inches long and one half inch in
breadth was withdrawn from the brain. About a dram of pus followed it.
After the operation the right side of the body was observed to be
paralyzed. The patient’s condition fluctuated, but the first week in May
his improvement had been such as to cause belief in his ultimate
recovery. On the 7th he ate something which disagreed with him, and
gradually grew worse until the morning of the 13th, when death ensued.
The _post mortem_ showed that the brain tissue to the extent of three
fourths of an inch around the track of the arrow-point was softened and
disorganized.

“Private William Drum, 14th Infantry, was wounded in a fight with
Apaches, November 11, 1867. One arrow entered over the malar bone of the
left side of the face, and passed along the lower border of the orbit to
within half an inch of the nose. Another arrow entered through the
tendons of the latissimus dorsi muscle on the right side, and passed
directly backward toward the spine under the deep muscles, penetrating
two and one half inches. On the 19th the arrow-point was cut out, the
parts healed by first intention, and on December 3 the patient was
returned to duty.

[Illustration:

FIG. 95. (S. 1–1.) Obsidian, agatized wood, and carnelian points.
These specimens are half-expanding bases, but the barbs and the
serrated edges are distinguishing features. C. F. Case’s collection,
Sams Valley, Oregon.
]

“John Fenske, a civilian, aged nineteen years, came to Fort Ridgely,
Minnesota, on the night of August 20, 1862. He had been wounded on the
previous day by an Indian arrow, shot from a distance of about twelve
feet, which had entered horizontally between the third and fourth ribs
on the left side, close to the vertebræ. The arrow—a barbed one with a
head about three inches long—was buried an inch below the surface of the
skin and had penetrated the left lung. On account of the barbs, it
became necessary to make a large perpendicular incision in order to
remove the arrow-head, which required considerable pulling, the sharp
edges having been wedged in between the ribs with such force as to bend
them over on each side. After dressing and the usual treatment, a
healthy suppuration ensued, and the wound closed by granulation in
thirteen days. The surgeon reported that ‘it was evident in this case
that the arrow had penetrated the lung,’ which diagnosis was fully
corroborated by the objective as well as the subjective symptoms. The
patient left the hospital for his home, September 30, 1862, forty-two
days after receiving the injury. The surgeon met this patient four years
after and found the pleural symptoms considerably ameliorated.

[Illustration:

FIG. 96. (S. 1–2.) A beautiful leaf-shaped implement. This was
originally a thin, leaf-shaped blade and was notched at one end. The
point was somewhat curved, an unusual feature, although occasionally
found in specimens in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. S. D.
Mitchell’s collection, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 97. (S. 1–1.) Thirty-four clear California points from the
Columbia Valley, Oregon. Materials: chalcedony, agate, and jasper.
H. P. Hamilton’s collection, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 98. (S. 1–3.) These seventeen specimens are the common forms of
the upper St. Lawrence basin. Many of them are of expanding base
type. Locality, Wisconsin. Materials: quartz, sugar quartz,
argillite, and flint. F. M. Caldwell’s collection, Venice, Illinois.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 99. (S. 1–4.) Sixteen various chipped implements of blue
hornstone. These are types of the upper St. Lawrence basin. F. M.
Caldwell’s collection. Venice, Illinois.
]

“A remarkable case of arrow-wounds was that of Private Osborn, 2d
Nebraska Cavalry, wounded in a skirmish with Indians near Pawnee
Reserve, Nebraska, June 23, 1863. Eight arrows entered different parts
of his body, and all were extracted except the head of one which had
entered at the outer and lower margin of the right scapula and passed
upward and inward through the upper lobe of the right lung or trachea.
The hemorrhage was so severe that all hope of his recovery was
abandoned. The patient, however, rallied, but continued to suffer great
pain on swallowing or coughing, and occasionally spat blood. In July,
1866, more than three years afterward, he called upon Dr. J. H. Peabody
to be examined for a pension. Upon probing through a small fistulous
opening just above the superior end of the sternum, the point of the
arrow was found resting against the bone about an inch and a half below,
the head lying flat against the trachea and esophagus, with the carotid
artery, jugular vein, and nerves overlying it. After some difficulty the
point of the arrow was raised above the sternum, and it was extracted
without the loss of an ounce of blood, the edge grating against the
sheath of the innominata artery during the operation. His health
underwent a remarkable improvement, and the operator, in January, 1869,
reported him perfectly well. His pension was not allowed.

[Illustration:

FIG. 100. (S. 1–3.) Compare these specimens carefully with those found
elsewhere in the country and note the difference. Materials: black
flint and quartzite. Benton Holcomb’s collection, Simsbury,
Connecticut.
]

“Private Spillman, 7th Cavalry, was wounded June 12, 1867, about a mile
from Fort Dodge, Kansas, by a party of Kiowas, who made a dash upon the
herd of horses he was guarding. He received three arrow-wounds—one in
the right shoulder; one in the right side, striking the rib; and a third
through the right lumbar region, penetrating the abdominal cavity eight
inches or more. The last-mentioned wound was enlarged, two fingers were
inserted on each side of the shaft until the base of the iron head was
reached, the fingers serving as a guide and protection when, traction
being made, the arrow was withdrawn. The wound proved mortal.”

And so I might continue giving illustrations of the power and force of
Indian arrows. Students are referred to the Bibliography for further
titles upon this subject. I would suggest that readers who expect to
visit Washington at some time in the near future, call at the Army and
Medical Museum and see the interesting exhibits on view illustrating the
matters touched upon in the preceding pages.

The use of drills as war arrow-points brings up an interesting subject,
and would indicate that many of the things that we have named according
to our own fancy were doubtless made use of by the Indians for totally
different purposes from those to which we have assigned them. Drills—the
smaller kind—certainly possess great power of penetration, and when
discharged may have entered to a greater depth. The broader points,
however, would produce a more tearing wound and cause greater flow of
blood. Broad points were more in evidence as hunting-points, for the
obvious reason that if the deer or other game lost blood freely, its
capture became more certain.

Professor Henry, of the Smithsonian, made a collection of buffalo and
human bones, in which arrow-heads were embedded. In several of the
buffalo ribs and scapulæ were arrow-points which had been shot _through_
the animal, piercing the bone on the inner side. Wilson says that such
specimens “illustrate the force with which an arrow can be shot by the
bow, and, because of its initial velocity, there is no comminution of
the bones. The edges around the wounds are not fractured or fissured on
either side; there are no splinters made by the arrow on entering or
leaving. This is due to the same principle that a pistol-ball fired at
short range passes through a pane of glass without shattering it.”

A paper by W. Thornton Parker, M.D., describes the arrow and its mode of
manufacture, and magnifies the malignity of arrow-wounds. The author
explains the apocryphal difference between hunting- and war-arrows,
saying:—

“The head of the war-arrow is shorter and broader than that of the
hunting-arrow, and is attached to the shaft at right angles with the
slot which fits the bow-string, the object being to allow the arrow in
flight more readily to pass between the human ribs, while the head of
the hunting-arrow, which is long and narrow, is attached perpendicularly
to the slot, to allow it to pass readily between the ribs of the running
buffalo.

“Ashhurst wrote an extensive article on arrow-wounds. He takes a
favorable view of the curability of arrow-wounds, which is borne out by
the cases cited, and says: ‘Those penetrating the chest and wounding the
lung, although serious, are by no means mortal.... If the patient
survives the hemorrhage, the prognosis is favorable, for the consecutive
inflammation is trifling and requires no treatment beyond placing the
patient at rest and affording a supply of pure warm air.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 101. (S. 1–1.) Large spear-point from Coshocton County, Ohio.
Material: clear chalcedony. W. C. Mills’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 103. (S. 1–3.) Large, notched flint spear-head. One of the
largest in America. Owned by G. F. Arvedson, Carpentersville,
Illinois.
]

“His table of arrow-wounds in the chest shows that out of eighteen cases
there were thirteen deaths.”

In 1528 the Spanish traveler, Cabeza De Vaca, said that the Indian
arrows were discharged with such force that the armor worn by the
Spaniards did not always avail. He stated that the Indians in Florida
used bows as thick as the lower part of one’s own arm and discharged
arrows at a distance of two hundred paces “with so great precision that
they missed nothing.”

He himself observed an arrow sticking in the base of an elm tree to the
depth of a span (four inches).

Fig. 87 illustrates two specimens from near Albany, Georgia, typical
Southern forms, the edges being slightly serrated. Figs. 101, 104, and
three in 83, present objects with almost straight stems, 104 presenting
Oregon types and 83 Pennsylvania. Fig. 86 marks the beginning of the
transition from the straight stem to the stem contracting from the base.
Such objects, with abnormally long stems, were undoubtedly originally
much longer specimens. The point broke off and the specimen was
re-chipped and made serviceable again.

White quartz was largely used in the South and in New England, also
yellow quartz in North and South Carolina and Virginia. Quartz was
harder to chip than other materials. Therefore, there are fewer highly
specialized forms in quartz than in either flint or argillite. Yet
examples are not wanting in which even so refractory material as quartz
was worked down, chipped, and made into a very beautiful arrow-point or
spear-head.

[Illustration:

FIG. 104. (_S. 1–1._)

_Chipped implements, from the Willamette Valley, Oregon. B. W.
Arnold’s collection, Albany, New York. Reproduced in natural colors.
Highest grade of workmanship. Materials: agate, carnelian, jasper,
chalcedony, etc._
]

CHAPTER VII
CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

STEM CONTRACTING FROM BASE

Although there are fine examples of flint-workers’ art in the class,
“Stems expanding from base,” yet as a rule it includes more simple forms
than stems contracting from base. This is true of most types. Fig. 90
shows simple forms in Class C, p. 23. Fig. 107, from Mr. Braun’s
collection, East St. Louis, stands for the long, slender spear-heads
occasionally found in the South and the Mississippi Valley region,
evincing high art in stone-chipping. The convex stem is shown in Fig.
99. Fig. 119 is from Dr. Jack Shipley of Texas. These present typical
Texas specimens with both contracting and expanding stems.

[Illustration:

FIG. 105. (S. 1–2.) Found near Kutztown, Pennsylvania. Material: block
chert. D. K. Deisher’s collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 106. (S. 1–2.) Long black spear-head. The common form of stem
contracting from base. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection, Newark,
New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 107. (S. 1–3.) Two beautiful white spear-heads. Found near the
Cahokia group of mounds. Material: flint. H. M. Braun’s collection,
East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 108. (S. 1–2.) Rotary spear-head. S. Van Rensselaer’s collection,
Newark, New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 109. (S. 2–3.) Arrow-head, with stem unusually long. Phillips
Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 110. (S. 3–4.) This Figure represents twenty-nine chipped objects
from the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Many beautiful specimens have
been found in this valley. It has produced possibly as many objects
as any given area in the world. Material: the usual semi-precious
stones. A careful study of these and other pictures of Willamette
Valley types will acquaint readers with the fact that there is an
endless variety of form. And yet the treatment is such that the
chipped implements from this valley can be recognized and described
as differing from others in any part of the world. H. P. Hamilton’s
collection, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

Fig. 121, Wisconsin types, Fig. 110, Willamette Valley, Oregon, and Fig.
112 should be compared by readers. These plates will emphasize the
difference in form. Some of these are classified under “Stems
contracting from base,” others belong in the division, “Stems expanding
from base.” Yet even in the same class there are to be observed certain
differences, for the stem is not always the essential feature.

[Illustration:

FIG. 111. (S. 1–2.) Points from Idaho. C. Albee’s collection, Red
Rock, Montana. Note the angular sides in the object in the upper
row, second from the right.
]

Fig. 121 represents some of the best specimens from Wisconsin sites.
Fig. 126 is from Mr. Reeder’s collection, Michigan, and represents the
best type in spear-heads of all kinds from Tennessee and Kentucky and
Ohio. The tops of many of these are convex and have been worn smooth
either because of the method of fastening, or on account of some
particular purpose. This is noticed in a great many of the finer
specimens, and leads me to believe it is not hard usage that brings
about such a condition, but that specimens were in position for a great
length of time, and this polished or smoothed surface is brought about
through such means.

[Illustration:

FIG. 112. (S. 1–3.) A group of Southern types, projectile points,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina. It will be observed that in
form and material these are easily recognized as being different
from those from Northern and Western points. Phillips Academy
collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 113. (S. 1–1.) This is one of the short-stemmed, broad arrows,
the result of working a broken specimen. J. P. Smith’s collection,
Howard, Rhode Island.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 114. (S. 1–1.) Stem contracting from base; double notches; bases
concave. These forms are not rare, but occur most frequently in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Tennessee. H. K. Deisher’s
collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

Fig. 122, from Dr. Barnard’s collection, Seneca, Missouri, illustrates
the best of the small Missouri points. Dr. Barnard’s collection is from
the outskirts of the Ozarks, where the art is superior to the cave art
of the Ozarks proper. The points found throughout the buffalo country do
not vary greatly, although it is possible to distinguish such points as
these from those of Texas. Fig. 105 represents Pennsylvania specimens
from Mr. Deisher’s collection, and Fig. 132, more of the interesting
Mississippi Valley spear-heads from Mr. Reeder’s exhibit. Figs. 125 and
147, Mr. L. Gibson’s collection, Schenectady, New York, give two
abnormal points, such as are occasionally found. I do not think that
such were arrow- or spear-heads, but must have been knives. It would be
impossible to shoot them with much accuracy. They are always
interesting, and I shall have more to say regarding them later. Figs.
116 and 117 present two plates from the collection of Phillips Academy,
Andover, Massachusetts. These were found generally throughout the Ohio
Valley. Careful study of them will acquaint readers with several points.
First, they are of the best workmanship. Second, they are almost
entirely of flint ridge or Tennessee nodular flint. Third, a large
proportion are rotary. Fourth, the barbs are unusually chipped and fine.
Fifth, the bases are straight, concave, and convex. Sixth, what is more
important than either stems or bases, the striking feature in these is
the barbing and notching. The tangs and shoulders are the prominent
points in these three plates—not the stems—which are of secondary
consideration. For example, in Fig. 116 the shoulders and tangs are
everything, and this will be found to be true of many flint implements.
Consider Figs. 97, 110, and 133 from the Columbia River Valley. In some
of these the stem is of importance, in others the stem is secondary to
the barbing. Fig. 114 presents typical Pennsylvania specimens from Mr.
Deisher’s collection. The central one has expanded shoulders and
represents a type more common in Pennsylvania than elsewhere. Fig. 115
is a plate of spear- and arrow-points from George Charters’s collection,
Greene County, Ohio. I wish to call attention to those seven specimens
on this plate which are marked “S,” and to refer to them in considerable
detail.

[Illustration:

FIG. 115. (S. 1–3.) Projectile points. George Charters’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 116. (S. 1–3.) Beveled spear-heads, chipped in the form known as
“rotary” points. These are selected from the collection at Andover.
They come from various portions of the Mississippi Valley, and are
all splendid examples of the skill of the master worker in stone.
Note particularly the differences in the notches and tangs. The
central one to the right has notches expanded. To make these is
extremely difficult, and although white men are able to make flint
implements, the working of the expanded notches is a lost art.
]

A MASTER AT FLINT-CHIPPING

[Illustration:

FIG. 117. Ten splendid specimens from the Mississippi Valley of
various kinds of points, all exceedingly well made. The workmanship
of these should be compared with those in other figures. Phillips
Academy collection.
]

Little attention has been paid by archæologists to ascertain an
important feature of prehistoric times. I refer to the presence in most
of the tribes of skilled workmen whose specialty seems to have been the
manufacture of certain kinds of implements. That some men were more
skillful in the making of axes or pipes, and handled bone chipping-tools
with more dexterity than others, goes without saying. If one were asked
to state what proportion of men were skillful in the art of
stone-working, no one could give a definite answer; but the searcher
finds in limited areas a particular style of flint-chipping, or a local
form of axe or pipe. These appear to have been made in the same manner,
perhaps with tools of the same pattern. The guiding hand of the master
workman is seen. Each one is stamped with individuality, therefore one
may conclude that either a certain person made these objects, or perhaps
the men of a given family made them.

[Illustration:

FIG. 118. (S. 1–1.) This is of that peculiar white or cream-colored
flint common in Iowa and northeastern Missouri. It is a fine stone.
This specimen is of a type occasionally found in Iowa and Missouri.
E. E. Baird’s collection, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
]

Supposing that a young man who showed proficiency in flint-chipping
should at the age of twenty become so skillful that his works were in
demand. It would follow that if he were given the ordinary span of life
his period of proficiency would extend for forty years. If he retained
his health and faculties, his activity might reach fifty years. It is
also quite likely that other men, perhaps not so competent as himself,
assisted him in his work and blocked out the forms or reduced them to
convenient size for him to finish. Such a labor division as Catlin and
Sellars affirm existed, enabled the skillful worker in flint to produce
a larger number of implements than if he attempted to work his own
material from the initial stage to the completed form. His people
residing in the same village would avail themselves of his wares, giving
him in return food, or implements, or clothing. His surplus stock in all
likelihood was sent to a distance to be exchanged with other tribes.

Such a man may have selected flint of a certain color, so that the
product of his labor might be instantly recognized.

[Illustration:

FIG. 119. (S. 1–2.) This cut presents 14 specimens. These illustrate
the Texas types. As a rule they are smaller and more slender than
those from the east and southeast of Louisiana. Dr. Jack Shipley’s
collection, Pilot Point, Texas.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 120. (S. 1–2.) Typical Oregon projectile points. H. P. Hamilton’s
collection, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

In order to place the evidence I have collected along these lines before
readers, I would cite the finding of twenty-two axes in one room of a
ruined pueblo, five miles south of Phoenix, Arizona, in 1897. These are
of the variety of stone and the same workmanship. Six particular
disc-pipes were found in graves at the mouth of the Wabash by Clifford
Anderson, in 1898, when exploring for the founder of the Archæology
Department of Phillips Academy. I would mention the effigy pipes found
by Squier and Davis at Mound City, a cache of forty leaf-shaped
implements, slightly different from the ordinary leaf-shaped knife of
similar material and the same workmanship, found in 1896 in a mound near
Coshocton, Ohio, the Hopewell discs, and the Hopewell sheet copper.

[Illustration:

FIG. 121. (S. 1–3.) White flint knives and arrow-heads. These are from
Michigan-Wisconsin sites and illustrate the peculiar forms obtained
there. The types are long and slender or short and broad and are
easily recognized. H. P. Hamilton’s collection, Two Rivers,
Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 122. (S. 1–2.) These are the finest points in the Ozark region,
where most of the types are crude. Materials: chert and quartz. At
the bottom in the centre are shown three points almost Oregon-like
in character. Attention is called to the serrated point in the
middle row. Dr. W. C. Barnard’s collection, Seneca, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 123. (S. 1–1.) These points are different from Oregon points so
frequently shown. Materials: opalescent and white chalcedony and
mauve quartzite. These are Eastern types, but are made of Western
material. Luther A. Norland’s collection, La Jara, Colorado.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 124. (S. 1–2.) Common New Jersey forms. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s
collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 125. (S. 2–3.) A Mohawk Valley type. Langdon Gibson’s collection,
Schenectady, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 126. (S. 1–7.) Twenty-eight fine spear-heads. These are from the
Ohio Valley, and present most of the forms of stemmed and barbed
objects. John T. Reeder’s collection, Houghton, Michigan.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 127. (S. 1–3.) Two symmetrical implements. Material: reddish
flint. These were found in central New Jersey, and may have been
obtained by barter or exchange. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection,
Newark, New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 128. (S. 1–1.) Small, delicate obsidian points, found in a ruin,
Mesa, Arizona. Andover collection.
]

My boyhood days were spent in Greene County, Ohio, and from 1876 to
1886, and during short intervals afterwards, I diligently searched the
fields and village-sites of the Little Miami River, Cæsar’s Creek,
Massey’s Creek, Oldtown Run, and Shawnee Creek. The observations made by
a boy are of no scientific value, save in this respect—that these
hundreds of excursions, in which my mind was concentrated on flint
implements and flint workings exclusively, gave me a knowledge of a
distribution of flint implements in Greene County, Ohio, which has been
of value to me in after years. And it is fortunate that a gentleman
living in my home town, Mr. George Charters, has since collected from
farmers and boys Greene County specimens to the number of three or four
thousand. As his collection contains no objects of consequence outside
of Greene County, one may obtain from that exhibit the proof of my
contention that in Greene County, within a radius of ten miles of Xenia,
Ohio, in any direction, there were, perhaps, three or four men who were
exceedingly skillful in the manufacture of large spear-heads or
lance-points of Flint Ridge material. These are somewhat different from
other spear-heads and may be easily recognized. They are of white
chalcedony, and are mottled and veined with pink or red or grey. They
are usually made of the most beautiful stone to be found in the Flint
Ridge quarries. They are not only oval, but if turned on edge one will
observe that they are exceedingly symmetrical, being a fourth to as much
as one third inch in thickness in the centre and yet tapering to an edge
almost as thin as a knife-blade entirely around. The notches are evenly
and deeply cut, the shoulders and tangs in sharp relief. No large flakes
were detached from these implements during the final stages of
manufacture; on the contrary, small minute scales or flakes were thrown
off, and the finished specimen is as delicately worked as the average
obsidian point from the Willamette Valley in Oregon.

[Illustration:

FIG. 129. (S. 1–1 and 3–4.) The large white spear-head is a little
over nine inches long and was found near Marion, Grant County,
Indiana. It is composed of white flint, slightly mottled. The small
arrow-head was found near Laramie, Wyoming. The picture shows the
exact size. This arrow-head presents wonderful workmanship. The
point is almost as fine as a needle and the chipping is regular,
clear to the point. It is of a dark amber color and the spots on it
are moss-agate. The arrow-head is translucent. Collection of H. F.
Burket, Findlay, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 130. (S. 1–2.) Two spear-heads from near Orange, New Jersey.
Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

Both Catlin and Sellars have said that the knowledge of cleavage in
stone is an acquired art. We have in modern times the lapidary who works
semi-precious as well as precious stones. He must understand the texture
of every stone he works. So with the lapidary who worked carnelian,
agate, and chalcedony—which are semi-precious stones.

No ordinary aboriginal workman made these specimens. They were the work
of an artist who was a lapidary. He was an expert in selecting his
material and he was an expert in bringing it to completion. In color and
shape these specimens reminded me as a boy of a certain sun-fish in the
streams in that part of Ohio, and we used to call them “sun-fish spears”
to distinguish them from the others.

[Illustration:

FIG. 131. (S. 1–2.) Flint arrow-heads, spear-points, and knives from
eastern Wisconsin. These interesting specimens represent eight
types. All of them are of superior workmanship. The beautiful
leaf-shaped object below the top row is especially fine. The
irregular form in the centre to the right is very rare. H. P.
Hamilton’s collection, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 132. (S. 1–6.) 50 flint implements from the collection of John T.
Reeder, Houghton, Michigan. These are from various portions of the
Ohio Valley and Tennessee. The flint fish-hook is a rare specimen.
The two objects in the lower line near the middle are interesting,
in that the stems are very long and the points exceedingly short.
This may be intentional or not. It may be that the objects were
broken and then re-chipped.
]

There are examples of the work of these artisans in near-by sections of
Ohio, but they are most common in Ross, Warren, Clinton, and Greene
counties. I never heard of them in Indiana or Kentucky. From the number
of them found I venture the opinion that the art was handed down through
several generations, for I do not believe that two or three men could
have made them all. Furthermore, there are other specimens of this same
peculiar pattern to be found in southern Ohio. These, while creditably
done, are not the work of an artist. The famous workmen may have had
imitators, or they may have attempted to train others in order that the
art might be perpetuated. Be that as it may, the other implements bear
the same relationship to these beautiful products as does a copy made by
an amateur of a famous painting to the work of the great artist himself.
Readers are requested to study carefully the style, form, and chipping
of these “S”-marked specimens shown in Fig. 115.

[Illustration:

FIG. 133. (S. 1–2.) Arrow-points from Oregon and Washington. H. P.
Hamilton’s collection, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 134. (S. 1–1.) In this illustration are shown six different
types. Note that the Colorado types are large like the Eastern, and
yet are made of fine agate, chalcedony, and obsidian. The
workmanship in these is better than the average because the material
is more easily worked than Eastern flint or quartz. Collection of
Luther A. Norland, La Jara, Colorado.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 135. (S. 1–1.) Long, serrated obsidian spear-head from
California. A rare type as to size and form. H. K. Deisher’s
collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 136. (S. 1–2.) Serrated types from California. H. K. Deisher’s
collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 137. (S. 1–2.) This figure shows a series of 39 chipped
implements. These were found in various portions of Kentucky, and
are in the collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
Because of the number shown, readers might infer that they are
common. Such is not the case. Colonel Young was many years in
collecting these specimens and they are selected after an
examination of fifteen or twenty thousand chipped objects, if not
more. They represent both the skill of the worker and individual
fancy.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 138. (S. 1–2.) Arrow-heads, spear-heads, and a drill, which were
found on the Mandan sites, on the banks of the Missouri River, North
Dakota, by Mr. Steinbrueck. Material: dark agate. Phillips Academy
collection. Presented by Edward H. Williams.
]

And there are many places in the United States where types that stand
for the lifework of a family or of an individual, or let us say of the
grandfather, and then the father, and following him the son, may be
found. All of this is not opinion merely. To the man who states that all
projectile points are alike,—and, surprising as that statement is, I
have heard a number make it who should know better,—the spears referred
to might seem identical with the yellow chert spears of Illinois. But if
one is seriously interested in archæology let him examine an exhibit
from a given locality, and I think that he will soon come to the belief
that in that locality there lived one or more persons whose specialty
was the manufacture of a certain type of implement made in a way that
was clearly individual; and the man, or men, who made them were artists
beyond question.

[Illustration:

FIG. 139. (S. 2–3.) This remarkable problematical form in obsidian was
found near Highland Springs, California. The serrations are worked
in high relief. Professor Putnam saw the original, and pronounced it
genuine, and compared a similar type from a grave near one of the
great Maya ruins in Yucatan. Collection of E. E. Baird, Poplar
Bluff, Missouri.
]

Figs. 110 to 134 show groups from various localities in the United
States including specimens under various classifications previously
described. Attention is called to the central specimen in the upper row
of Fig. 110. It is a long, thin, leaf-like blade, slightly notched at
one end. Fig. 95 presents several serrated Oregon points; and Fig. 138
shows nine objects from the Mandan village-sites, North Dakota. The
Mandan points are nearly all triangular in form with square bases. That
is, before being notched or barbed they were stemmed square, or at one
end angular, and seldom with convex sides. Then the notches were cut,
giving the appearance of a war-point with notches.

A few Mandan objects have concave bases, prominent shoulders, or barbs,
but the most of them were of the form shown in the lower specimen in
Fig. 138.

CHAPTER VIII
UNUSUAL FORMS IN CHIPPED OBJECTS

We have presented illustrations and brief descriptions of all forms
classified by the Nomenclature Committee. There remain numbers of forms
which do not fit in any of the divisions. Fig. 140 shows a long, pointed
object, half-size. There are two distinct projections at the top; the
base is concave. Such an implement would be classed as stemmed or not
stemmed according to one’s point of view. But the exaggerated shoulders
are the essential features, not the stem.

[Illustration:

FIG. 140. (S. 1–2.) Material: dark blue flint. W. P. Agee’s
collection. Found near Hope, Arkansas.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 141. (S. 1–1.) Drill-like object. There are really four barbs, or
shoulders. Collection of E. E. Baird, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 142. (S. 1–1.) Collection of Mr. Kendall. This is of expanding
stemmed type, yet there is observed on the right side a projection
intentionally made. A few such objects have been found, and their
purpose must remain problematical.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 143. (S. 1–1.) This figure is probably a knife. It was found by
Mr. J. R. Smith in Rhode Island. It has a notch in the top, a large
one in the side, and the cutting edge is beveled, or rather made
sharply convex. Mr. Smith sent the specimen for examination. It
shows evidence of considerable use. Such an object defies
classification.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 144. (S. 1–2.) Unusual forms from Pennsylvania. H. K. Deisher’s
collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 145. (S. 1–2.) Very rare form of chipped implement from
California. H. K. Deisher’s collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 146. (S. 1–1.) Peculiar object from F. Delaney’s collection. Fig.
140 and also Fig. 146 are similar specimens, one from W. P. Agee’s
collection, Arkansas, and the other from the cabinet of F. Delaney,
Rhode Island. In both these the barbs are purposely exaggerated and
made the predominant feature of the specimen. It is easy to theorize
that these were worked over from broken forms, which may or may not
be the case. Fig. 140, Mr. Agee’s collection, has unusual, long,
rounded shoulders, the edges beveled, and the angles are very
marked. Both these specimens are interesting; similar ones are not
frequently found. The above specimen is of mottled flint and was
found in Pulaski County, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 147. (S. 1–1.) An object (knife) with sloping shoulder,
well-defined blade, or cutting edge. Collection of Langdon Gibson,
Schenectady, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 148. (S. 1–2.) The curved knife shown above is from one of the
altars of the Hopewell group, and is shown half-size. A number of
these barbed knives, made of obsidian, were taken from the Hopewell
effigy mound. The material is from Yellowstone Park, and must have
been brought over twenty-five hundred miles (by canoe).
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 149. (S. 1–1.) This is from Wisconsin. Such specimens are
beautiful examples of high art in chipping. G. L. Collie’s
collection, Beloit, Wisconsin. A similar specimen to Fig. 149 is in
the collection of Mr. L. Simonton of Warren County, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 150. (S. 1–1.) Black, opaque obsidian with double serration;
notched for handle. Very delicate workmanship. Found by James A.
Barr at the Stockton Channel mound.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 152. (S. 1–1.) Unknown form of chipped object. E. E. Baird
collection, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 151. (S. 1–3.) “Stockton Curves.” Black obsidian, fine
workmanship. James A. Barr’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 153. (S. 1–1.) To the right a scraper or knife of finely grained
chocolate quartzite. At the left, the upper specimen is a knife of
white chalcedony; the lower specimen, gray jasper, assuredly a
handled knife, with tang so small that it must have been used on
something easy to cut. Possibly a knife for opening fish, as it was
found where trout are plentiful. Point broken, cutting edge
unusually sharp. Collection of Luther A. Norland, La Jara, Colorado.
]

In the neighborhood of Stockton, California, are many small mounds and
prehistoric sites. Professor James A. Barr and the late Rev. H. C.
Meredith spent considerable time in examination. As a result numerous
peculiar curved and angular obsidian artifacts were discovered. I
present a few views of these in Figs. 150 and 151. In “Prehistoric
Implements,” page 362, Professor Barr expresses his opinion that the
curves were used to scarify the flesh on ceremonial occasions. This was
a universal custom among Indians, particularly the tribes west of the
Mississippi and along the Pacific Coast.

[Illustration:

FIG. 154. (S. 1–2.) This cut presents peculiar serrated unknown forms
from the Fraser River, British Columbia. These were found by Harlan
I. Smith.
]

The peculiar thing is that these curves are confined to the locality of
Stockton and do not occur elsewhere. Therefore, my individual theory is
that certain skilled workers in obsidian developed or made a specialty
of this form. In other words, a peculiar art was developed by a certain
clan or group of families, as has been observed in Greene County, Ohio.

[Illustration:

FIG. 155. (S. 1–2.) This is a flint chipped in an imitation of a moose
antler, and was found by W. H. Davis in Lowell County, Ohio. It is a
remarkable specimen.
]

Regarding the amount of obsidian available for chipping, Professor Barr
states: “The great obsidian beds of Lake and Napa counties, which I have
examined several times, could furnish all the Indians of the United
States with material for generations. The hills are full of great blocks
of obsidian, too heavy for a man to handle, and it breaks as straight as
a shingle.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 156. (S. 1–1.) A fish, a crescent, and possibly a bird, together
with highly specialized points in carnelian and moss-agate, found
near Arlington, Oregon. The skilled worker was able to make effigies
of human beings, as well as of birds and animals, in agate, etc. F.
A. Thomas’s collection, California.
]

I call attention to Fig. 160, from Mr. Reeder’s collection, Michigan. In
this plate are seven large flint objects. The spear-head does not differ
from other similar kinds of spears, but the flint celt, to the right, is
unusually well-shaped and so highly polished that the flake depressions
are scarcely visible. To obliterate all traces of chipping must have
required a great deal of labor. The round, flat disc at the bottom is
very carefully worked, and cannot be classed as unfinished. It is
purposely worked in this form. What was the object of the natives in
making this, I leave to others.

[Illustration:

FIG. 157. (S. 1–9.) In addition to other specimens, this represents
four Indian heads, showing both the features and the method of
hair-dressing. These are from the collection of J. T. Reeder,
Houghton, Michigan, and were collected by him in Tennessee and
Kentucky.
]

The human head shaped out of flint is such as is occasionally found in
Tennessee in the stone graves. Some similar heads are shown on a smaller
scale, in Fig. 157, of Mr. Reeder’s collection. At the top to the left,
in Fig. 160, are two of those problematical forms in flint which have so
puzzled archæologists. These, together with the slender dagger-shaped
objects of prodigious length, have for many years been listed under that
opprobrious name, “ceremonial swords.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 158. (S. 2–3.) This illustration represents three animals and
four birds, all chipped out of flint, and in the possession of H. M.
Braun, East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

The remarkable problematical forms in flint which have been called
“stone swords,” shown in Figs. 161 and 162, deserve special mention.
These are part of a series of forty-six flint implements which were
found in Tennessee. I surrender the pen to Mr. W. J. Seever, former
curator of the Missouri Historical Society Museum, who furnished the
following description:—

“On the banks of the beautiful Duck River, Humphreys County, Tennessee,
near Painted Rock, on the farm of Mr. Banks Links, are the remains of an
extensive, ancient, stone-grave cemetery, which at one time contained
hundreds upon hundreds of stone cists. The land having been in
cultivation for many years, wagon-loads of flat rocks used in building
the graves have been carted off and the human remains scattered;
innumerable objects of prehistoric art have been turned up by the plow
and are now among the collections of the Ohio Valley.

[Illustration:

FIG. 159. (S. about 1–4.) Effigies in flint, from the collection of J.
T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan; from stone graves near Waverly,
Tennessee.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 160. (S. about 1–3.) From John T. Reeder’s collection, Houghton,
Michigan. I know of few more remarkable finds in American archæology
than this series of flint implements which were collected in
Tennessee by Mr. Reeder.
]

“In December, 1894, an employé of Mr. Links, while plowing in this
field, turned up several implements. Their form and size being unusual,
time was taken to dig, and the objects as shown in the accompanying
illustration were found. According to the words of the finder, they were
simply ‘in a bunch’; nothing unusual in the manner of the deposit was
noted. The find was talked of and commented upon for several months. The
precise spot having been carefully noted, further digging was done in
the following March. At a depth of a foot or two below where the flint
objects had been deposited, two images or idols were found. Whether the
deposits had been associated with human remains, it was impossible to
determine. From appearances and accounts of the discovery, the images
were placed in the ground side by side, in an upright position, the
flints in a compact ‘bunch’ immediately above. On all sides were remains
of graves, but so many of these graves having been disturbed and the
stones removed in cultivation, that with certainty it cannot be said
that the find was a deposit with the dead, although the writer inclines
to the opinion that they were and that the stone cist lay immediately
above the cache of objects.”

General Thruston says of such forms:—

“The symmetry and beauty of the handle, the exact projections on
opposite sides, the tapering forms and the evidently important place
these rare objects must have held in the religious and social life of
the old Tennesseeans, all invest them with peculiar interest.

“Here we have, in all probability, the sceptres or royal maces once used
by the magnates of the race that built the mounds and fortifications of
middle Tennessee. They may have been the insignia of chieftainship or of
the priesthood.”

I feel confident in asserting that nowhere in the world has the equal of
these magnificent flint implements been found. The maker of such forms
was a Stone-Age artist of remarkable skill.

Fig. 137 exhibits 39 remarkable chipped objects from Colonel B. H.
Young’s collection, Louisville, Kentucky. There are, perhaps, more
specialized flint artifacts found in Kentucky and Tennessee than
elsewhere in North America. Some of these can be classified, but most of
the 39 objects represent individual fancy. The master workman exerted
himself to produce unusual types, and being a master at flint-flaking he
rounded out his work skillfully and artistically. Readers are requested
to examine Fig. 137 with some care.

[Illustration:

FIG. 161. (_S. about 1–3._)

_Chipped problematical forms, from a grave in Tennessee. Missouri
Historical Society collection._ (_See page 164._)
]

_Figures 161 and 162 illustrate problematical forms in flint from a
grave in Tennessee. See pages 164–166. Missouri Historical Society
collection, St. Louis, Missouri._

_These specimens are part of a deposit of forty-six and vary from eight
to twenty-two inches in length. The longest one in Fig. 161 is twenty
inches. All of them exhibit unusual skill in their manufacture._

[Illustration:

FIG. 162.

_The same as Fig. 161._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 163. (_S. about 1–3._)

_Chipped axes and hoes. F. P. Graves’s collection, Doe Run, Missouri._
]

CHAPTER IX
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS

According to our classification, we should place under our first
division, “Chipped objects, without Stem,” all the spades and
agricultural implements except those that are stemmed, or notched. Some
of the Pennsylvania roughly chipped hoes might be considered as stemmed.
But the chipped hoes of the Mississippi Valley are simply angular spades
to which have been added notches by the aborigines. I have, therefore,
thought best to describe them all under the general title of
agricultural implements.

[Illustration:

FIG. 164. (S. 1–3.) These specimens were found in Illinois and made of
Mill Creek, Illinois, material. H. M. Whelpley’s collection, St.
Louis, Missouri.
]

It is quite likely that some of them are ceremonial in character rather
than mere agricultural tools; for one cannot conceive that the fine work
on the lower specimens in Fig. 167 is indicative of use as a common
digging-tool.

[Illustration:

FIG. 165. (S. 1–6.) Typical oval spades. Missouri Historical Society
collection.
]

A classification of agricultural implements would be, it seems to me:—

(a) Notched, flint or stone digging-tools. (See Figs. 163, 164.)

(b) Oval spades. (See Fig. 165.)

(d) Flaring or convex or angular digging-end. (See Figs. 167, 170.)

Objects of the general shape of those shown in Fig. 182 are scattered
throughout a considerable portion of the United States. Of course, some
of the notched, chipped objects may be axes instead of hoes or
agricultural implements, and I have illustrated such in Figs. 173 to
177. But there are roughly notched and shouldered objects which may be
hoes instead of axes. These are not necessarily all flint, for some are
of shell, limestone, and other materials.

Fig. 163 is a group of six from Mr. F. P. Graves’s collection, Doe Run,
Missouri. Three of them are certainly digging-tools, whereas the other
three may be axes.

[Illustration:

FIG. 166. (S. 1–5.) Collection of Missouri Historical Society, St.
Louis, Missouri.
]

In Fig. 164 are shown notched or shouldered hoes of more primitive type
than the hoes in Fig. 166. Many of these, together with rough spades,
are found in Missouri, Arkansas, and Illinois. The beautifully chipped
flint spade is the exception. But there are a large number of spades
which are graceful in outline and well made, and which are typified in
the exhibits from the Missouri Historical Society shown in Fig. 165.

The long spade-like objects are never notched, but they are frequently
narrow at the top, or flaring at the base. Note the lower specimen to
the right in Fig. 167.

The hoes are really small spades. Hoes may be oval or angular.

A third class, shown at the top in Fig. 167, is a highly specialized
form.

Fig. 168 presents several specimens of oval type, chiefly from Missouri,
Arkansas, and Illinois, from F. P. Graves’s collection, Doe Run,
Missouri. Further study of these will give readers a general idea of the
range through which these implements pass. These are all of the more
simple forms, save some of the larger ones just above the elongated
pestle. The two to the left, in the upper row, are angular and not oval
spades.

In Fig. 169 are shown five interesting notched hoes from B. H. Young’s
collection. These are not as highly finished as those in Fig. 166, but
they exhibit a pointed hoe and hoes with a curved edge and the hoe with
the digging-edge almost straight.

It may be decided, after thorough investigation, that the finer spades
were used for a particular purpose or in the cultivation of sacred
ground. Mr. Sellars thought that the spades evince more care and skill
in their manufacture than the other implements.

Formerly, there was some question as to just what purpose these served,
but we know now that their distribution was confined to the rich soils
of the central Mississippi basin. They do not occur at all frequently in
the far South, neither are they found in the Great Plains proper, save
perhaps occasionally in eastern Kansas and central Iowa. The polished
edges of many of them plainly indicate that they were made use of by the
more sedentary tribes to prepare the ground for the planting of corn,
beans, squashes, and such other seeds as the Indians possessed. Judging
from the prodigious number of these implements in the hands of museums
and private collectors, agriculture was carried on by the natives in no
small measure. The chipping on most of them is rather rough. It was not
necessary for the ancient worker in flint to exert his skill on an
implement designed for a rough, although a very useful purpose, yet
there are specimens not lacking in the museums to prove that the
implement was blocked out after the ordinary fashion, and by means of
secondary chipping, small flakes were detached and the surface made as
smooth and even as that of a large spear-head.

[Illustration:

FIG. 167. (S. 1–3.) Flint spades and a hoe—all three unusually fine
objects. J. T. Reeder’s collection, Houghton, Michigan.
]

As to the polish on these things, there are some who contend that it is
due to action of the soil, that a patina or coating of some sort
accumulates. In other words, the polish is said to be a result of
chemical action. Others have thought it due to long-continued use. Some
spades, hoes, and flint celts exhibit this polish, others do not. The
polish appears on specimens which look as if they had been long used.
Yet all specimens showing much use do not exhibit the polish. But the
most significant thing to my mind in favor of the theory that the polish
is due to use, lies in the fact that it is not found on long flakes,
spalls, or blades from quarries where flint suitable for agricultural
implements was taken out and removed. Some of the quarry pits must be
very old, yet polish does not appear on specimens found there. Again, if
polish is due to some elements in the soil of river terraces, then one
would suppose that the whole surfaces of the implements would be
polished. But only the ends are polished, and always the end used in
digging—that is, the edge of the spade.

May 5, 1910, I lectured in Springfield, Illinois. Spades are numerous in
the region lying between Springfield, Illinois, and the Mississippi
River. Therefore, I took occasion to inquire particularly into the
circumstances observed when spades were found, in order to settle this
question as to polish. A number of gentlemen, who have collected several
hundred spades, furnished me with much information with reference to
conditions under which spades are found. Mr. H. M. Braun of East St.
Louis, who lives near the Cahokia group of mounds, has one hundred and
eighty-seven spades and more than a hundred hoes and two or three
hundred flint celts and rough chipped implements in his collection. Mr.
Braun informs me that no one who has found or collected spades could by
any possibility believe that the polish is the result of chemical
action. His reasons are as follows: First, that the polish is found on
spades irrespective of location; that is, a spade may be found in the
Mississippi bottoms, where the soil is very rich, or on the upland, or
near a quarry. And it may or may not be polished. Second, that
spear-heads, arrow-points, and knives of the same material as the spades
do not show the polish. Third, that spades, hoes, and projectile points
of the same material, from the same field, do not exhibit this polish.
It is only the spade which has long been used, the edge of which is
polished. If the polish is due to chemical action, the same polish would
be found on small as well as large objects, or all the objects of a
given locality would present that polish.

In view of these facts, it is beyond question that the polish is due to
use, and it is quite clear that any one who takes the opposite point of
view is not familiar with the locality and conditions under which spades
are found.

[Illustration:

FIG. 168. (_S. about 1–6._)

_Oval and other spades, from the collection of F. P. Graves,
Doe Run, Missouri._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 169. (S. 1–3.) Shouldered hoes. Large hoe measures 9½ inches in
length. Material: yellow chert. B. H. Young’s collection,
Louisville, Kentucky.
]

Mr. Charles E. Brown, Chief of the Wisconsin Historical Society Museum
at Madison, reports upon flint spades as follows:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 170. (S. 1–4.) This is a surface find, from near Edwardsville,
Madison County, Illinois. Material: chert, straw color. Collection
of H. M. Braun, East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

“A small number of these have been found in Wisconsin, specimens being
recovered as far north as Green Lake and Sheboygan counties. Most are
oval or elliptical in outline, and are made of the same quality of flint
as are the fine agricultural implements of the middle Mississippi
Valley. It is likely that they were introduced through aboriginal trade
relations with tribes located in that region. One of the largest
measures thirteen and three fourths inches in length. A few spades are
manufactured of materials procurable in Wisconsin. In the collections of
the State Historical Museum is a fine example made of brown quartzite.

“Several notched flint hoes have also been found in southern Wisconsin.
They are made of local flint, but are patterned after those of the
middle Mississippi Valley.”

It is curious that no spades have been found in Southern Indiana and
Ohio.

[Illustration:

FIG. 171. (S. 1–4.) These beautiful spades and the hoe are from the
Mississippi “Bottoms,” near the Cahokia mound. Note the concave base
in the hoe, and the squared stem. Very few such hoes are found.
Material: straw-colored, cherty flint. H. M. Braun’s collection,
East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

CHAPTER X
FLINT CELTS AND AXES

Closely related to hoes and spades are the flint celts, and occasionally
a chipped flint object notched on either side, which may have served as
an axe. Flint axes are sometimes found east of the Mississippi, but they
are more common in Missouri, Arkansas, and Kansas. The ones from the
site of Harahey and Quivira are rude, being flint turtlebacks or rejects
notched on either side, but those from Wisconsin and a few from the
South are better made and evince some skill in their manufacture.

[Illustration:

FIG. 172. (S. 1–2.) A notched axe from the collection of A. M.
Brooking, Trumbull, Nebraska. These notched axes are frequently
found west of the Mississippi River in various portions of Kansas,
Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas.
]

There are rude, notched chipped implements of the type shown in Fig.
172, which may not be of flint but of other materials. This one is from
Mr. A. M. Brooking’s collection, Trumbull County, Nebraska. It is very
like types from Pennsylvania. A large implement slightly notched in the
side, found in La Jara, Colorado, is shown in Fig. 175. This is of clear
chalcedony, and a very fine specimen.

[Illustration:

FIG. 173. (S. 1–1.) Notched flint axe, or rough implement from the
collection of F. Wetherington, Paducah, Kentucky. This is of chert
and may have originally been a turtleback, but was afterwards hafted
in a handle.
]

Mr. Dudley A. Martin of Pennsylvania has mounted a large, flint
implement in a handle which I show in Fig. 176. Two specimens, one from
Iowa and one from Kansas, from our Andover collection, are shown in Fig.
174, and one from Kentucky in Fig. 173.

An unusually well-chipped, notched, flint axe is shown in Fig. 177. It
was found by Mr. W. H. Davis near the mouth of the Muskingum River in
Ohio. The types of flint celts vary.

I show five ordinary ones from Mr. Mitchell’s collection, Ripon,
Wisconsin, in Fig. 178, and the ten various forms of celts from the
Andover collection in Fig. 180.

[Illustration:

FIG. 174. (S. 2–3.) Collection of Phillips Academy, Andover. One from
Iowa, the other from Kansas. The edges are worn smooth and they both
show considerable use. They are covered with patina and appear very
old.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 175. (S. 1–1.) Double-bitted war-axe, chipped out, but never
polished. Dull chalcedony, tipped at each cutting edge with red.
Flecked in the middle with gray spots. Luther A. Norland collection,
La Jara, Colorado.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 176. (S. 2–5.) Supposed method of hafting the notched flint
implements. Such objects would make formidable weapons for use in
close quarters. Collection of Dudley A. Martin, Duboistown,
Pennsylvania.
]

There is a lesson to be drawn from the preponderance of these flint
celts and axes over those of granite or limestone. Where flint is more
common—as in the Ozarks—than other materials, aboriginal man modified
his form of hatchet in accordance with the material at hand. It would be
too hard for him to groove a flint axe. He, therefore, notched the sides
of the rough blade or turtleback, and lashed it in the handle. If the
blade got dull he scaled off a few flakes and restored the cutting edge.
Flint axes made convenient and formidable implements and weapons. There
was an abundance of surface flint in Indian Territory and Kansas, as
well as quarry material. And the flint celt became widespread from a
point about two hundred miles east of the Mississippi in Tennessee and
Kentucky to southern Iowa and southern Indian Territory, three hundred
miles west of the Mississippi. Outside of this belt flint celts are
rare. Yet in widespread areas where flint abounds, celts and kindred
implements of flint are not found. The range of the flint celts is from
the rough implements to the highly developed spud-shaped polished flint
celts found in Tennessee graves.

[Illustration:

FIG. 177. (S. 1–2.) More highly specialized notched implement, from
the collection of W. H. Davis, Lowell, Ohio. Dark, bluish-gray
flint. Found on the banks of the Muskingum River, near Marietta,
Ohio, in 1887.
]

These flint celts are usually rough, but frequently present a very high
polish, indicating a long and continued use. Particularly is this polish
noticed on the edges. The form of them does not vary as much as the
forms of the celts in granite, limestone, sandstone, porphyry, or other
materials. But flint celts may be divided into two classes, the oval
form and the form with the sides somewhat square. I think the latter
class represents the art of more skillful workmen. The specimens thus
made are more nearly like the European type of square flint celts than
are our other prehistoric implements. Flint axes form, of course, a
separate division or class from the celts.

[Illustration:

FIG. 178. (S. 1–2.) Five flint celts from the collection of S. D.
Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin. Such are found in Wisconsin as well as
other parts of the country.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 179. (S. 1–3.) Polished celts of flint. Upper row, adze-shaped;
lower row, celt-shaped. From central and southern Kentucky. B. H.
Young’s collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 180. (S. 1–2.) Ten flint celts of various types, Phillips Academy
collection, Andover. These are of chert, jasper, and argillite, and
were found in Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa. They range
from square celts to oval, although the cutting edge is usually at
one end.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 181. (S. 2–3.) Flint celt. Material: light-colored flint.
Collection of M. L. Young, Pontiac, Illinois. Found in Massac
County, Illinois, on the surface.
]

It is significant that although large quantities of flint were quarried
at Flint Ridge, Ohio, yet there are few celts made of Flint Ridge stone,
the Ohio Valley natives preferring other materials.

[Illustration:

FIG. 182. (S. 1–2.) All chipped celts and hoes are by no means of
flint. Sandstone, limestone, and trap rock were often employed by
the natives of Pennsylvania and other sections. W. E. Bryan of
Elmira has sent me photographs of chipped celts found near Elmira.
Fig. 182 is a chipped and polished celt, having on its face a bow
and unknown signs carved into the stone.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 183. (S. 1–2.) A better example of chipped celt in stone other
than flint is shown in Fig. 183, also from near Elmira. Both front
and side views are presented half-size. W. E. Bryan’s collection,
Elmira, New York. The Mohawk, Susquehanna, Connecticut, Delaware,
and other valleys furnish numerous specimens of chipped hoes and
celts, but seldom of high workmanship, as they were rather common
agricultural implements or general service tools for use about the
camps.
]

The flint celts, nine in number, shown in Fig. 179 are from various
portions of Kentucky. I am indebted to Colonel Young for the loan of
these and some fifty other illustrations. Attention is called to the
high finish on these celts. Compared with other flint celts, they tell
an interesting story. It is not so much the material or the location in
which the implement occurs, as it is the amount of work put upon it and
skill evinced by the manufacturer.

While speaking of the flint celts in Colonel Young’s collection a few
lines previously, I would call attention to Fig. 181, Mr. M. L. Young’s
collection, Pontiac, Illinois. This is also a remarkable flint object in
that it is neatly grooved, well chipped, with sharp point, and it was
doubtless used as a hand-hatchet, mounted as in Fig. 176.

CHAPTER XI
SCRAPERS

TYPES WITH ONE OR MORE SCRAPING EDGES WITHOUT OR WITH NOTCH (INCLUDING
CIRCULAR)

A good deal has been published regarding scrapers. They served pretty
much the same purpose everywhere in the world. While this is true, yet
there is a great difference in scrapers, and the simple statement that
they are scrapers with or without notches does not suffice. There are
ordinary flakes worked to a scraping edge, and scrapers with deep
notches and long tangs; there are scrapers with barbs, and without
barbs; there are broken arrow-heads worked into scrapers. I have
subdivided the scrapers under the Committee’s general class as follows:—

A. Flakes worked to a scraping edge (several in Fig. 192).

B. Ordinary oval and circular scrapers. (See Fig. 184.)

C. Spoon-shaped scrapers. (See bottom row, Fig. 190, and bottom row,
Fig. 184.)

D. Scraping edge extending entirely around (bottom row, Fig. 188).

E. Notched or shouldered scraper. (See Figs. 187, 193.)

F. Crescent scraper. (Two to the left in Fig. 187, one in Fig. 193.)

G. Specialized scraper. (See Figs. 188, 190, 191, 193.)

Scrapers are commonplace tools, yet they played an important part in the
life of ancient man. They illustrate his economy, for we know that he
made over broken spear-heads and arrow-points into scrapers.

I have endeavored to show in these illustrations all types, from the
circular disc with the scraping edge to the highly specialized forms. Of
course, scrapers and knives merge the one into the other, and where the
scraper ends, the knife begins.

Series can be arranged in any large collection beginning with the simple
knife and working back to the scraper, or _vice versa_. In the Mandan
village-site ash-heaps more than seven hundred scrapers were found by
Mr. E. R. Steinbrueck; the large Mandan collection of five thousand
specimens, which contains them, was presented to our Museum through the
kindness of Professor E. H. Williams, Jr. A plate of these scrapers is
shown in Fig. 190.

[Illustration:

FIG. 184. (S. 1–2.) Scrapers of classes “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D,”
Phillips Academy collection, Andover, Massachusetts. These are from
various portions of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 185. (S. 1–2.) Scrapers of Class “E.” These are the more common
Wisconsin-Minnesota forms. F. M. Caldwell’s collection, Venice,
Illinois.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 186. (S. 1–1.) Scrapers, New Jersey types. Materials: jasper and
quartz. Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 187. (S. 1–2.) Twenty scrapers, all with notches or shoulders,
from various portions of the United States. Andover collection.
Attention is called to the second one from the left in the lower
row, which is sharply concave on one side.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 188. (S. 1–1.) Specialized scrapers from the Columbia River
Valley. B. W. Arnold’s collection, Albany, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 189. (S. 2–3.) In the top row a chipped flake and simple forms of
scrapers. No. 20 is a highly specialized form. Dr. Jack Shipley’s
collection, Pilot Point, Texas.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 190. (S. 2–3.) In the lower row, a spoon-shaped scraper to the
left, and four ordinary scrapers; the next row from the bottom, two
heavy flint flakes worked to a scraping edge. They are of the same
form as the Pennsylvania scrapers shown in Fig. 191.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 191. (S. 1–1.) Two specialized scrapers from the collection of
George A. Huber, East Greenville, Pennsylvania. These are of
quartzite and are interesting specimens. The form is not as rare in
Pennsylvania and Georgia as one would imagine. Similar forms are
shown to the left in the middle row of Fig. 190.
]

In the past, among archæologists, there has been no little discussion
with reference to scrapers. They were mounted in short handles of both
bone and wood. Numbers of them have been found in the cliff-houses in
the Southwest attached to their original handles. It is unfortunate that
in the Mississippi Valley, east of the Great Plains, the climate is such
that none of the larger bone tools have withstood decay. At
Madisonville, the cemeteries and ash-pits have furnished us with some of
the larger bone handles, but elsewhere, all have disappeared. Stone
scrapers were inserted by the Plains tribes in bone handles, and under
the chapter devoted to bone objects several of the handles will be
illustrated. One of these was found near the head of the Missouri River
about twenty years ago, and apparently had been lying on the surface for
a considerable length of time. It is of old type, and I have taken it to
represent how the scrapers in ancient times might have been mounted.
There are some similar tools in the Smithsonian, American Museum of
Natural History, Peabody Museum, and other institutions. Scrapers are
few in New England compared to the Mississippi Valley and the North.

[Illustration:

FIG. 192. (S. 2–3.) Andover collection.
]

In view of the small number of flint implements occurring on the Great
Plains, which the Indians called the “buffalo country,” there are more
scrapers of yellow chert, poor jasper, and white flint, in proportion to
other parts of the country than elsewhere in the United States. By the
buffalo country I mean all the territory drained by the following
rivers: the Missouri, Red, Brazos, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
tributaries. The Indians of this region, particularly of the Dakotas,
Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas, depended on the buffalo. The buffalo
was used by them for manifold purposes: (1) Food; (2) bones for
implements and weapons; (3) glue from the hoofs; (4) strings from the
sinews; (5) skin for garments; (6) skin for dwellings; (7) skin for
boats; (8) hide for packing-cases and bags, shields, etc.; (9) skull for
ceremonies; (10) the small bones for rattles; (11) the hair for filling
material; (12) droppings for fuel, etc., etc.

[Illustration:

FIG. 193. (S. 1–1.) Five scrapers from the collection of Stephen Van
Rensselaer, Newark, New Jersey. These are of argillite and red
chert. The central one is quite unique, having three concavities,
all of which show that they have been much used, being polished.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 194. (S. 2–5.) From the collection of the University of Vermont,
Burlington. These specimens were collected about the shores of Lake
Champlain. Ten of them are scrapers, three of them are reamers or
short drills, five of them are scraper-knives and seven are drills.
This little collection is typical of Lake Champlain forms, and
emphasizes how one type merges into another. Near the centre, the
almost angular object with the broken point may illustrate the first
form of drill. Just below it and above the two scrapers is a rudely
chipped object which may also stand for the beginning of the drill
form.
]

The preparation of hides was perhaps the most important work, and
required the attention of all the women in each village and consequently
the employment of thousands of scrapers and flint knives. The value of
the buffalo to the aborigines cannot be overestimated. The Indian killed
and made use of every part of the animal, and the hide-hunters and white
men, who made record killings simply to satiate a lust for blood and
slaughter, exterminated the buffalo. Chief of these was W. F. Cody, or
“Buffalo Bill,” who killed 4280 buffalo in fifteen months, according to
Professor W. T. Hornaday in the Smithsonian Report for 1887. The
slaughter of the buffalo by himself and nameless Bills and Dicks, of
frontier fame, was responsible for much of the trouble with our Plains
tribes. Canada was cursed with no such class of frontiersmen, and Canada
never had one twentieth part of the trouble with her Indians that we
have had with ours. The extermination of the buffalo by the white
hide-hunters was justly considered a national calamity by the Indians of
the West. It menaced their very existence and made paupers of whole
tribes.

CHAPTER XII
CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

PERFORATORS

These most interesting objects are widespread throughout the United
States. Wherever chipped implements abound, they are to be found.

Their classification is:—

1. Cross-section.

(A) Round.

(B) Quadrangular or irregular.

2. Stem.

(A) Without stem. (All types shown in Fig. 196.)

(B) With stem.

(a) Stem expanding gradually.

(b) Stem expanding suddenly.

3. Irregular forms.

Many objects heretofore called drills are in my opinion hairpins and
cloak-fasteners, even in early historic times. Blankets or cloaks draped
over the shoulders, and joined together on the chest, had on the edge
loops of buckskin. A decorated stick or long bone was run through these
loops to hold the covering together. In prehistoric times it is not
unlikely that long bone pins and flint so-called drills were used for
this purpose. Many of the so-called drills are too irregular in the
cross-section to have been of much service in the real drilling. And if
one inspects specimens in which the drilling was incomplete, one will be
surprised at the percentage of cores in the bottom of the holes. This is
especially true in the Mississippi Valley and the South, where wild
reeds and canes grow.

I cannot believe that we have satisfactorily explained these drills.

The generally accepted theory, indicated by the name we have given them,
that they were used in drilling, seems to me to be incorrect. I conclude
that more of them served as coat-fasteners, hairpins, and ornaments.

[Illustration:

FIG. 195. (S. 1–1.) Drills from Colorado sites. Materials: jasper and
chalcedony. Collection of Luther A. Norland, La Jara, Colorado.
]

One must not forget that both sexes of Indians wore their hair long and
ornamented the locks with copper bands, narrow strips of bead-work,
feathers, etc. Narrow beaded bands were popular among certain tribes,
not only as hair ornaments, but were worn across the forehead, while
ornamented tassels of various kinds hung down on either side, or behind.

It must be remembered that long, slender shell pins, not unlike the long
drills, were worn as hairpins. These could not by any possibility have
served as drills, as they are too fragile. Shell hairpins were easier to
make and, naturally, more common than those of flint or copper. The
manufacture of the long, slender, drill-shaped objects was no more
difficult than the making of fine flint implements, but it is my opinion
that there was greater risk of breakage.

Another class of perforators which will fall, on form, under the
classification presented above, was frequently called “reamers.”
Illustrations are presented of these in Figs. 198 and 203. Reamers
apparently were used for different purposes from the long drills. No
sensible man will conclude that they were both identical in purpose. A
reamer would be more effective for punching holes in soft, thin
substances and drilling shallow holes in wood. I suppose buckskin was
perforated by the means of bone awls, although the smaller reamer might
be used for such purposes. The shorter drills seem to me to be more
suitable for drilling in stone than the longer ones.

An ironclad classification on size and form is, from a mechanical and
technical point of view, impossible in this class of objects. The
reamers shown in Fig. 198 have both sharp and dull points and are
classed together. One may drill with a dull-pointed stone drill, not
with a sharp slender point. It will invariably break. The sharpest
reamers were for perforating, for lancing, etc., in soft substances,
such as leather and flesh.

There are in all museum collections many rough, thick perforators. It
would appear that these are more suitable for drilling than other forms.
I never believed that the long, slender, beautifully worked perforators
were used for perforating. I think that they would break; I have often
experimented to a limited extent with these and find that the rougher
drills shown in Fig. 194 are much better for drilling purposes than the
long slender ones.

Drills with stems expanding either gradually or suddenly, placed side by
side, would appear to one who was familiar with these things as quite
different objects. If the term “stem expanding suddenly” means that
these two belong to the same class and are used for an identical
purpose, one may with propriety retort that the real purpose is unknown
save by inference, that one does not believe that these two specimens
were used for precisely the same purpose.

[Illustration:

FIG. 196. (S. 2–3.) This cut shows seven drills representing the types
in our classification from all parts of the country. They are with
stem, without stem, stem expanding gradually, stem expanding
suddenly, notches in the side, base straight, concave, and convex.
Phillips Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 197. (S. 1–1.) Three peculiar obsidian reamers with long stems
and short points. Collection of F. M. Gilham, Highland Springs,
California. The figure at the bottom is a pointed obsidian knife.
]

More skill, time, and care were required in the manufacture of these
more beautiful, delicate “drills,” than in the making of common
perforators. Again, the ancient Indians were saving and never
extravagant. It is to be thought that they would scarcely be so foolish
as to employ in a hazardous operation the finest implements in their
possession. Yet, if an Indian found it necessary to employ his finest
and most precious object in a ceremony or for the purpose of appeasing
the gods, or as a gift to the dead, he would not hesitate to do so. He
placed all such desires and thoughts first. This is characteristic of
Indian nature.

Witness Professor Holmes’s discovery of remarkable flint implements in a
spring near Afton, Indian Territory. His contention is that these were
gift offerings.[4]

[Illustration:

FIG. 198. (S. 1–1.) Five jasper and obsidian reamers or small drills.
Collection of C. F. Case, Sams Valley, Oregon.
]

We seldom find axes, pestles, spades, and grooved stone hammers in
mounds or graves. I never knew of more than two instances in the whole
United States where pestles were buried in ancient graves, and I never
knew of a single find of pitted hammer-stones in a prehistoric mound or
grave. This does not mean that the Indian regarded labor as beneath him.
It means that he drew a special line of demarcation between those ideals
which concerned his “mystery,” and the affairs of everyday life. His
religion, or as unthinking people have called it, his superstition, he
placed first.

He worshiped the Unknown in the air and sky above. Naturally, he showed
respect to the dead, and perhaps not so much to the person of the dead
as to that estate into which the deceased entered. Truly, one might say
that “nothing unclean or common” was placed by him with the dead, or
offered as a sacrifice to the spirits. For this very reason I maintain
that while the Indian would spend hours of rigorous laborious work upon
bringing to perfection certain art forms or weapons, he would not employ
these in the manufacture of commoner implements, ornaments, or other
forms. But on the contrary, prompted by his high regard for stone
objects of the character of these long and slender flint ornaments, he
made use of more serviceable and common things as tools. Therefore, it
was natural for him to select a reed, or a stout hickory stick, or a
heavy flint drill instead of an object that will chip or break in the
course of five or ten minutes drilling.

There is yet another use to which I believe some of the finest
perforators was put, which I state as my opinion merely.

Among the Crows, Mandans, Sioux, and other Indians were common, in the
days of Lewis and Clark, necklaces of long bones of three to four and
sometimes five inches in length arranged in parallel rows. These were
highly prized. One of these breast ornaments was presented to me by
Mah-een-gonce, a chief of the Ojibway, at a squaw dance in August, 1909,
at White Earth Reservation.

While it is my opinion that such objects as are shown in Figs. 199 and
202 were not used as drills, I should like to offer the suggestion that
they served other purposes. Perhaps they were made use of as hairpins,
possibly they were fastened to strips of buckskin, several of them being
worn in parallel rows. Mounted in that manner they would form unique
ornaments and appeal to aboriginal fancy.

CACHED FLINT OBJECTS

These would follow, according to classification, under knives and
projectile points without stem—“C,” more or less circular.

[Illustration:

FIG. 199. (S. 1–2.) Fifteen beautiful slender drills of chalcedony,
blooded quartz, and agate. Collection of W. P. Agee, Hope, Arkansas.
There were over two hundred of these drills found in one grave. They
range from two inches to four and a half inches in length. These
beautiful specimens doubtless represented an offering of some kind.
They are all of the same workmanship and represent as high an art in
flint-chipping as is to be found anywhere in the world.
]

In many portions of the United States deposits of flint implements have
been found. These were called caches from the obvious fact that they
were buried temporarily, and that in time the owners would seek them
again. Numbers of finds of caches reported during the past thirty years
are cited in the Bibliography, under “Caches” and also “Discs.” Although
many caches have been reported, there must have been an unknown number
discovered by farmers and laborers of which no record was ever kept. One
of the most important was a report by Dr. J. F. Snyder, of Virginia,
Illinois, and described at length in the _Archæologist_ (October, 1893).
The largest deposit was in mound number 22 of the Hopewell group, and
from this we took out 7532 flint discs about six inches in diameter and
a half inch thick, when we explored the group, in 1891–2. These are now
on exhibit in the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. (See Fig.
42.) Squier and Davis had taken out about six hundred in 1845, and prior
to our official count, we gave to Mr. Hopewell and others about fifty,
so that the grand total was nearly eighty-five hundred. In the case of
the Hopewell deposit these discs represented a storage of raw material.
The discs were not placed in that mound as an offering. There were no
burials and no altars.

[Illustration:

FIG. 200. (S. 2–3.) Three splendid drills from the Andover collection.
From Ohio. Particular attention is directed to the one to the right
with the shoulders projecting horizontally. In the central one the
shoulders are curved upwards, a more common form than with the
shoulders horizontal.
]

Many years later I discovered the quarries on Little River, Tennessee,
eighteen miles south of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, whence, I am persuaded,
this flint was obtained. It was of the nodular variety, gray-blue in
character, and could be easily worked. The quarry showed signs of
extensive working.

[Illustration:

FIG. 201. (S. 1–2.) A fine pointed drill-lance (possibly used in
scarifying flesh, or opening sores) at the left; next, a rotary
point, almost drill-shaped; and a gracefully curved drill.
Collection of S. Van Rensselaer, Newark, New Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 202. (S. slightly less than 1–2.) Three fine drills from the
collection of S. Van Rensselaer, Newark, New Jersey.
]

After a thorough investigation I concluded that the ancient people had
quarried this flint, worked it down to convenient disc form for
distribution, and taking it in canoes down the Little River to the
Cumberland, down the Cumberland to the Ohio, up the Ohio to the Scioto,
and thence to North Fork of Paint Creek, landed it one half mile from
the Hopewell village. The distance by water would be seven or eight
hundred miles, as near as I can judge. If the material was not brought
in this manner, it must have been obtained by trade, and one can
scarcely conceive of over eight thousand discs weighing from one fourth
to two thirds of a pound each, being carried overland on the backs of
Indians from northwest Tennessee to central Ohio.

In spite of the great quantity of material stored in the Hopewell mound
referred to, yet most of the chipped objects on the village-sites of the
Hopewell group and in the mounds were made of Flint Ridge material,
instead of the nodular flint of the cache. My theory is that the deposit
was made in the last years of the occupancy of the Hopewell group, and
for that reason the Indians did not make general use of it.

[Illustration:

FIG. 203. (S. 1–1.) Peculiar reamer with very broad base. The stem is
wanting, the shoulders are squared. This form is rare. E. H.
Collins’s collection, Cherokee, Iowa.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 204. (S. 1–1.), one of those specimens difficult of
classification, is from Mr. Gibson’s collection, Schenectady. The
turned point is sometimes found in knives, seldom in drills. Quite
likely this specimen should appear in the knife-class; yet the point
(rare in that it is curved) is not unlike the reamers.
]

Deposits, or caches, contained not only discs but elaborate blades and
oval forms. The latter are the most common. The delicate leaf-shaped
blades found in many of the caches could have been used as knives
without further workmanship, or notched and barbed and employed as
spear- and lance-heads. More slender spears were produced by chipping
from the sides of the leaf-shaped implements and barbing. These caches
represented the stock in trade of the aboriginal merchant rather than
the possessions of a warrior or priest. If a warrior or chief, or any
other man, buried his possessions, we should find in that cache objects
not entirely of one class.

The number of these caches, their widespread extent, and the fact that
all of them tell the same story, are to my mind clear evidence that when
the greatest villages of ancient times from Pittsburg to Mandan, from
Lake Itasca to New Orleans, and from Bangor to Los Angeles, were
inhabited, there were numerous aboriginal traders and artisans who
traveled from point to point disposing of their wares.

Curiously enough, caches of other than chipped objects are extremely
rare, and I have never heard of a cache of bird-stones, problematical
forms, or of “bicaves.” There have been a few caches of axes and
hematites. Squier and Davis’s great find of two hundred pipes in an
altar of the “Mound-City” group near Chillicothe, Ohio, can hardly be
called a cache.

CHAPTER XIII
HAMMER-STONES AND HAMMERS

These were classified by the Committee under chipped implements as “IV,
chipped stone,” although most of them are not chipped. But they were
much used in shaping chipped objects, and I have left them in the place
assigned by the Committee.

1. Spheroidal. │
────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
2. Discoidal (a) “Pitted.” │(Figs. 205, 206.)
(b) Not “pitted.”│ „
────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
3. Elongated (a) Grooved. │(Figs. 207, 209, 210.)
(b) Not grooved. │ „

The types of stone hammers and hammer-stones are fully described by J.
D. McGuire in the _American Anthropologist_, in volumes 4, 5, and 6. Mr.
McGuire has devoted more study to the manufacture of hammer-stones and
stone hammers than any other person, and has made a number of implements
using the stone hammer and fragments of other stones to reduce irregular
surfaces. I quote from Mr. McGuire’s article in the _Anthropologist_ for
October, 1891:—

“An examination of these objects will demonstrate that three types
probably contain them all.

“First. The oblong or flattened ellipsoid having a pit on one or both
sides; the pits probably being intended as finger-holds to relieve the
index finger from the constant jar occasioned by quickly repeated blows
on a hard surface. The periphery of these will often be found quite
smooth, at other times rough, according as it has been last used as a
hammer or as a rubber, although hammers of hard and tough material, when
used on stone of similar character, wear away on the periphery as though
rubbed. Often one or both of the flattened sides shows the effect of
rubbing, as in Fig. 1.

“Second. The spherical implement slightly flattened at the poles showing
a battered and commonly a smooth surface. These two types may be
considered as common all over the world.

“The third type would appear to be the grooved hammer, of the use and
distribution of which less is known. This type was evidently intended
for hafting, which would interfere with its use as a rubber.

[Illustration:

FIG. 205. (S. 1–2.) University of Vermont collection. This illustrates
several hammer-stones and rude pestles, for the hammer is closely
related to the pestle.
]

“All three types vary greatly in dimensions, but as a rule the two first
are of a size suitable for hand use, not only for hammering but also for
rubbing.

[Illustration:

FIG. 206. (S. 1–4.) Hand-hammers. W. A. Holmes’s collection, Chicago,
Illinois. It seems that the hardness of the stone was a prominent
factor in the time consumed in making an implement. Mr. McGuire once
used a jasper hammer-stone during the total of forty hours’ work,
and yet the surface of the stone showed slight wear. His opinion is
that the hammer of quartzite—hard quartzite, for there are soft
varieties of that stone—is hard enough to fashion a number of
implements.
]

“It is intended to discuss here the hammer used in stone pecking as
distinguished from the chipping hammer. By the latter a slower and more
deliberate blow would be given, and consequently its shape would not be
material.

“That nuts and bones could be cracked and paint and grain could be
ground with hammers is admitted, but it is contended that no reasonable
amount of such work would cause the implements to present the appearance
they do if only so used. Moreover, any unshaped stone would have
answered these purposes as well as a finished implement; hence, is it
reasonable to suppose that savage man would trouble himself to fashion
useless objects?

[Illustration:

FIG. 207. (S. slightly less than 1–2.) Two hammer-stones. Collection
of C. Albee, Red Rock, Montana.
]

“Hammers were made of any hard stone that could be obtained. It is
common to find them of diorite, quartzite, or other tough material
capable of the greatest amount of work with the least wear; they would
be gritty, as is almost invariably the case, to grind the pecked surface
as work progressed. It can hardly be doubted that men living in an age
of stone must have been conversant not only with the best sources of
material, but also with its adaptability for particular uses.

“Some may doubt whether the stone hammer could do the work suggested
[Mr. McGuire illustrated the truth of this contention by making an axe].
It is made of a close-grained black porphyry that in 1878 was pecked out
and grooved entirely with a stone hammer by the writer as a first
effort, to demonstrate the method of axe-grooving. The work on this
stone represents approximately five hours’ labor. When the hardness of
material is taken into consideration, it is safe to conclude that it
could not have taken more than one half as much time to groove an
ordinary axe, since they are of much softer material. From this may
roughly be calculated the time that would be required to fashion a stone
axe or in fact any other stone implement which was made by pecking and
polishing; and it will be seen that, granting a liberal allowance of
time, the manufacture of stone implements consumed a small portion of
the time supposed to be requisite. The statement that the manufacture of
an axe or in fact of any other stone implement was a long process has so
often been made that it may be regarded as a common belief among
archæologists. So great have the difficulties of their manufacture been
supposed to be that it has been surmised even that early races had other
than stone tools.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 208. (S. 3–4.) This may be an unfinished discoidal or “bicave,”
or it may be a hammer-stone finer than the average. Hy. B. Bischoff,
Collinsville, Illinois.
]

The various types of hammer-stones used in chipping flint implements are
shown in Chapter II, Figs. 13 and 14, of this book.

In the _Anthropologist_ for April, 1892, Mr. McGuire gave an account of
the manufacture of the nephrite axe. I quote from Mr. McGuire’s paper as
follows:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 209. (S. 1–4.) Phillips Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 210. (S. 1–3.) Phillips Academy collection.

The various types of grooved hammers.
]

“The material of a grooved nephrite axe made by the writer is from New
Zealand, and was procured through the kindness of Professor Clarke, of
the United States National Museum. This stone is one of the toughest as
well as of the hardest known, and when work was first commenced on it
was irregular in shape as when broken from the large boulder, with sharp
edges that cut the hand as the stone was struck with the hammer. In
pecking with the stone hammer, about one hundred and forty blows were
given to the minute. The hammers first used were of quartzite from Piney
Branch, on the edge of Washington City. About forty pebbles were
destroyed before one was found tough enough to stand the necessary
pounding. With a single exception, none lasted more than ten minutes.
The exception was a close-grained gray quartzite, with which was
performed eight or ten hours’ work.

“Gabbro or black granite was then used for a hammer and was found
useless; gneiss proved to be no better, and the work appeared hopeless.
Finally, through the kindness of Mr. Weed, of the United States
Geological Survey, a rough piece of compact yellow jasper from the
Yosemite was obtained, with which about forty hours’ work was done. The
jasper was worn but slightly, the nephrite losing about the same weight
as the jasper. This hammer is yet large enough to manufacture many
dozens, if not hundreds, of such implements as the celts and axes
usually found in this section of country. With a nephrite hammer of
suitable shape, having a narrow periphery, the work of fashioning this
axe could probably have been done in one half the time.

“In the process of manufacture, owing to a flaw, a large piece of the
blade was broken off and a second flaw, running diagonally through the
specimen, threatened to destroy it if the hard pounding was continued.
Work on it had therefore to be curtailed. The groove could not be worked
deeper because the jasper hammer did not have a narrow edge. The outline
having been carried as far as was thought safe, grinding on a block of
rotten granite was resorted to; the granite was kept wet and the
nephrite, being held in the hand, was rubbed backward and forward for
about five hours. Subsequently it was polished with a pebble of compact
quartzite, both dry and wet, the process occupying about six hours. The
axe was then rubbed with wood and with buckskin to further polish it,
but apparently without effect. The pecking occupied 55 hours and 10
minutes, which period, estimating the number of blows per minute as 140,
would give over 460,000 blows required for the manufacture of the
implement. This stone weighed when first received 7625 troy grains; the
present weight is 5143 grains; the loss therefore is 2482 grains. This
specimen, however, can hardly be taken as a fair standard of aboriginal
work, for in selecting the material a workman would naturally choose a
pebble as nearly the desired shape as could be procured, and thus avoid
a large part of the labor. The savage, if we can believe the accounts
given of him by early travelers, was not likely to make unnecessary
exertion.

[Illustration:

FIG. 211. (S. 1–5.) Material: granite. All are from South Dakota.
Collection of Mrs. Ella V. Milliken, Alpena, South Dakota.
]

“In contrast to the obdurate nephrite, a block of kersantite was
selected. This kersantite is from New Jersey, and is a much tougher
stone than was generally used for the common stone axe or celt found in
the eastern portion of the United States. The block was exceedingly
rough when first taken in hand, yet it required less than two hours’
labor with an ordinary quartzite hammer to produce a comparatively
well-finished axe. A good idea of the time necessary to manufacture such
an implement is thus afforded. The polishing was done with sand and
water rubbed with a smooth piece of quartzite, the time required being
included in the time specified.”

In his later paper in the _Anthropologist_, for July, 1893, Mr. McGuire
continues his observations. He considers that all chipped implements
show a special fracture, and therefore the weight of the hammer and its
material and shape “are all important elements to be considered; the
intended implement must be struck with a certain weight and force, and
at a particular angle, to accomplish the desired result.” Mr. McGuire,
in his papers, follows out more in detail what Mr. Sellars originally
observed many years before any of the experiments by men connected with
the Smithsonian Institution were made.

Mr. McGuire calls attention to the difference between the heavy hammer
and the light hammer-stone:—

“The battering hammer is commonly a discoidal stone, having a rounded
periphery, with a pit on each flat surface intended to hold the thumb
and middle finger, whilst the index finger is placed on the periphery.
The pits are but slight depressions, but are sufficient to prevent the
stone from slipping as the blow is given, and at the same time enable
the workman to raise the index finger slightly, and thus save the jar
which would otherwise in a few minutes disable the arm. The blows with
the battering hammer are given at the rate of two hundred or more a
minute, which would be impossible with the ordinary chipping hammer.
With this hammer rapidity is essential, and the blow is ordinarily given
to a broad surface, and no deliberation is necessary. Battered objects
are numerous and vary greatly in size; consequently the hammer is found
to vary likewise.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 212. (S. 2–3.) Collection of W. P. Agee, Hope, Arkansas.
]

Figs. 209, 210, and 211 present eighteen hammers from various portions
of the United States.

The pitted stone, the round hammer-stone, and the other rude grooved
hammer are tools, as we have seen; but the more carefully worked grooved
hammer served a different purpose. On the Plains large hammers were
frequently made and used by Indian tribes that subsisted on the buffalo,
as it would be impossible to break the larger bones of that animal with
ordinary hand-hammers.

Some of the hammers have flat backs, as have axes, and wedges could be
inserted for securely fastening them to the handle. As has been
previously stated, primitive man was economical, and when he broke an
axe he could make the edge round and use it as a hammer. The finer
grooved hammers (Fig. 212) were undoubtedly used as weapons and lashed
in sticks to serve as clubs or maces, the handles being more or less
ornamental. Much is to be learned from a study of the hammer-stone and
the grooved hammer, and I agree with Mr. McGuire’s statement, “the
hammer is homely at best, yet the hammer tells us more of ancient times
than does the celt.”

Mr. Charles E. Brown, the able archæologist, says of these grooved
hammers:—

“They closely resemble grooved stone axes in shape, but have blunt
edges. Examples are to be seen in all of the larger Wisconsin
collections. Several specimens are ornamented with flutings.

“Mauls and club-heads were made of pebbles or small boulders and have a
groove about their middles. The smaller are said to have been used as
club-heads. Some are very rude, and others smoothed or polished.
Specimens are found in most parts of the state. They are most numerous
in northwestern Wisconsin and along Lake Superior, where they were
employed as weapons in the early struggles between the Chippewa and
Dakotas. From the Lake Superior aboriginal copper mining-pits hundreds
of stone mauls have been recovered.

“A rare type of stone club-head has two grooves. A few specimens have a
ridge on either side of the groove. Another unusual form has
intersecting grooves.

“Specimens of these hand-hammers or hammer-stones have been found on
every Indian village-site in the state. They show every stage of work,
from the ordinary pebble with its surface scarcely altered to those
dressed into convenient shape and provided with grips or hand-holds.

“Good series of these spherical stones or stone balls, from the size of
a marble to that of an orange, are in all of the larger public and
private collections. They are found on Indian village- and camp-sites,
and occasionally in mounds.”

CHAPTER XIV
CONCLUSIONS AS TO CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS

We have finished describing the chipped implements, and it is proper to
offer some conclusions and deductions. If one will walk through the
halls of the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, or the Smithsonian Institution
at Washington, or the Field Museum of Natural History at Chicago, one
will observe that chipped objects are more numerous than any other class
of artifacts on exhibition. Personally, I have examined sites in twenty
states, and I saw but one section of the country where broken pottery
exceeded chipped objects in quantity. That was the Chaco region in
northern New Mexico and the San Juan Valley. Elsewhere spalls, flakes,
discs, and broken chipped implements exceeded axes, pottery, or any
other class of prehistoric artifacts. When we counted the specimens in
the Andover Museum, November 10, 1906, we found that out of 55,928
objects, more than thirty-two thousand were of the chipped class. Our
collection is general, representing most of the states in this country.
The count indicated not only that chipped objects were more numerous
than any other division, but that they were more numerous than all
others combined.

The range in chipped objects is from the minute arrow-heads found on an
island at Moccasin Bend, Tennessee (near Chattanooga) to large obsidian
blades from California, or large unfinished chert implements on
exhibition in the Peabody Museum, Cambridge. I have never measured these
immense objects seen at Cambridge, but some of them appear to be fully
thirty to thirty-five inches in length and the weight may be from ten to
twenty pounds. One may suppose that when these large, roughly chipped,
flint, oval-shaped objects were worked down, the completed form would be
similar to those long, slender dagger- and sword-like objects on
exhibition in the Missouri Historical Society and the Tennessee
Historical Society collections.

What impresses me most is the skill of the ancient worker in flint—his
ability to reduce the rough, unfinished objects of such size to the
completed form.

Contrasted with these are the minute points, varying from one fourth to
two thirds inches in length, which are found at Moccasin Bend,
Tennessee. Colonel Young has made a large collection of these and there
are numbers on exhibition in our Andover Museum. Why the aborigines left
such numbers of delicate points, which in workmanship quite equal those
of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, must remain a mystery. Possibly these
were left on the island as “spirit offerings,” as in the case of the
finely chipped objects found by Professor Holmes in the spring at Afton,
Indian Territory.

The largest barbed or shouldered chipped specimen I have seen is in the
possession of a lady near Bainbridge, Ohio. It is seventeen inches in
length, and of pink and white quartz.

As has been remarked elsewhere in this book, such objects as the
Tennessee “swords,” and the other unusual forms in obsidian from
California and from the Hopewell altars, defy classification. In form,
they may be included along with the rough turtleback, and crude knife,
and highly finished knife, under “I. Type 1, without stem,” of the
Nomenclature Committee’s classification.

Readers are requested to glance at all the illustrations presented and
observe that the highly specialized barbed and notched implements may be
arranged: (_a_) notches parallel to the base; (_b_) notches diagonal to
the base; (_c_) notches on either side and in the base. Also that there
is a distinct type with sides parallel or convex for half the length of
the specimen, and that the point is sharply narrowed down, forming an
appreciable angle to the sides of the specimen.

The harder materials, such as quartz, quartzite, and argillite,
frequently reach a high state of perfection. But as a rule the less
refractory the material, the finer the workmanship. Thus, it is natural
that the points found throughout the eastern Alleghenies, in New
England, New York, and Pennsylvania are not as highly finished as those
of the central Mississippi basin. And again, the flint of the
Mississippi basin, while beautifully worked, is not, on the whole, of as
high average as that of the Columbia Valley. Yet the small points from
Moccasin Bend, Tennessee, the “sun-fish spears” of Greene County, Ohio,
the ceremonial “swords” of Tennessee, equal anything found on the
Pacific Coast. While this is true, there are many crude implements in
the Mississippi Valley for every finely worked object. But because of
the predominance of obsidian, agate, carnelian, and agatized wood—all
which materials are easily worked and of bright color—the Indians west
of the Plains were able to chip exquisite projectile points and knives,
that in the average are higher in workmanship than elsewhere. Had the
Mississippi Valley tribes possessed as fine material as the natives from
the Columbia Valley, I think that their specimens would have been just
as well made. However, the Pacific Coast furnishes nothing better than
those shown in Figs. 213 and 214.

Although chipped implements have been placed in a class by themselves, a
few of them could be fitted into other divisions. A small polished stone
celt may have been used in hide-dressing even as was a chipped flint
scraper. Occasionally, as in the Ozark region, axes or hatchets were
made of flint, and notched and hafted somewhat after the fashion of
Eastern grooved axes, yet it was not thought best to place chipped axes
in the same class with grooved and polished axes.

The range in form and material, in size and general character, is
remarkable. I have said more than once in this book that chipped
implements of a given locality exhibit a certain individuality. I repeat
this observation purposely because I have heard it stated, by those who
should know better, that chipped implements are more or less alike the
world over. It would be as accurate for one to say that because leaves
grow on trees and serve the same purpose, therefore, all leaves are of
the same form.

To one who has examined chipped implements in a perfunctory manner they
will appear more or less alike, just as to him who is not a botanist,
leaves convey no more information than that they are leaves. Yet he who
is interested in the technology of flint implements will become
proficient after a few years of work, and may distinguish the
arrow-points of one section from those of elsewhere. Such a student will
observe that there are at least thirty already known and localized
types. It is probable that this number will be expanded, as we study
localities more carefully.

In the following pages I refer to materials of which implements are made
and to certain illustrations in my text. If readers will examine the
figures cited and compare the variations and form between one part of
the country and another, the distribution of these types will be made
clear.

[Illustration:

FIG. 213. (S. 1–3.) From Trigg County, Kentucky, and Stewart County,
Tennessee. These adjoining counties are divided by the Cumberland
River. B. H. Young’s collection.
]

The New Hampshire form of chipped implements is seen in quartz,
quartzite, chert, porphyry, slate, and other materials. In quartz, the
difference is not great between New England and the South. But there are
forms of slate spears or lance-heads found in New England that do not
occur elsewhere, whether the same materials are in use or not. Note
Figs. 88 and 100 which present typical New England forms. Passing west
from New England there is little change in character until one crosses
the Hudson, and then we have the Delaware and New Jersey, long slender
forms chiefly in jasper, chert, argillite, and a few in quartz. North,
in New York and Canada, in the Iroquois country, there is much black
chert, some white quartz and jasper, and a multitude of the triangular
or war arrow-heads. Illustrations of New Jersey types are in Figs. 64,
90, and 201. About Lake Champlain there was much travel and trade in
ancient times, and not only New England but also the western New York
forms are present. Types are shown in Fig. 194.

In the _American Anthropologist_ for October-December, 1909 (vol. 2, no.
4, p. 607), Professor G. H. Perkins, of the University of Vermont,
describes the Lake Champlain types.

Although resembling the chipped points or knives in their general form,
certain smooth objects are found which he observes are quite different
in material from the average; being ground and not chipped. Professor
Perkins states: “These represent a class of implements which are found
on both sides of Lake Champlain. They are all made from slate, red,
purple, or drab, such as occurs abundantly in this region. The use of
these objects is rather problematical. They are almost always well made,
the surface is smooth and almost polished, the edges are sharp and do
not indicate that the tool had been severely treated. And yet the
material is not very hard and is very brittle, and some of the specimens
(knives?) are slender. One is nine inches long and an inch and a half at
the widest part; it would easily break, and there are other specimens
nearly as fragile.... The greater number are three or four inches long
and of varying width. All are stemmed, and usually the stem is notched
on each side. In the collection at Burlington there are more than thirty
of these objects, and a smaller number in the state collection at
Montpelier.”

Leaving New York, passing south into the great Chesapeake region, the
slate points of New England and the jasper of New Jersey have
disappeared. Instead we have chert, quartzite, argillite, rhyolite,
calcareous quartzite, and the peculiar modeled white and pink quartzite.
Specimens from this region are illustrated in Figs. 40, 86, and 92. It
is quite easy to recognize them, as reference to the plates will prove.

[Illustration:

FIG. 214. (S. 1–1.) Drill. Spears. Dr. H. M. Whelpley’s collection.
Presented as beautiful examples of American art in flint.
]

The number of flint implements in the State of Pennsylvania is
surprising. The range is greater than that found in any other section of
the country. Pennsylvania types are shown in Figs. 82, 83, 94, and 114.

Professor E. H. Williams, Jr., has called my attention to the broad
distribution of quartzite and argillite and to the fact that many shades
in color and variation of texture are to be observed in these two
materials.

I regret that it is not possible to present a series of colored plates
illustrating the various color shades of the same material. By that
means I would emphasize what I wish to convey to readers of “The Stone
Age.”

We cross the Alleghenies, passing through West Virginia into Ohio, where
quartz has disappeared (save an occasional stray), and we find yellow
and brown chert along the Ohio River, where Eastern and Southern tribes
often traveled. Rude implements are more numerous along the Ohio River,
on both sides, than in the interior in the states bordering that stream.
(See Fig. 50.) But the presence of Flint Ridge enabled the natives to
employ as fine material for their implements as is to be found in
America. The rude types of the East and the South, save as stated above,
have disappeared and the beautiful handiwork of the most skillful
manipulators of flint and chalcedony are to be found everywhere. (See
Figs. 101, 115, 116, 129, and 200.)

On crossing the Ohio River and passing through Kentucky and Tennessee,
one encounters yet another section wherein the implements may be
separated from those of elsewhere. Less quarry flint is in use, and more
of nodular flint, both brown and gray, black and blue, was made use of
by the prehistoric tribes. (See Figs. 74, 137, and 179.) In this region
large problematical forms, commonly called “swords” and “daggers,” also
flint effigies and remarkable leaf-shaped implements, slightly notched,
are to be found. (See Figs. 159, 160, and 161, 162.) A few of the latter
have strayed into Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan, but they are, as a
rule, Tennessee-Kentucky types. Such forms are no more a resemblance to
New England types than is the leaf of the pawpaw tree like that of the
maple.

South of Tennessee the chipped implements of Georgia, Louisiana (see
Figs. 59, 87, 112, and 140), Arkansas, and western Mississippi are
jasper, yellow chert, quartz, and peculiar milk-colored quartzite, often
variegated with blood-red veins; also ferruginous chert. Most of these
types are small. East, along the Gulf, in Florida and South Carolina,
the implements are ruder, of larger size, and usually of a rough chert.
The finer spears and knives are made of a beautiful translucent yellow
flint. Where this is found I am unable to state. Stone of suitable kind
is rare in Florida. The Florida, the lower Mississippi, and Tennessee
regions are separate and distinct as to their chipped implements. Of
course, there are duplications of types, as in any section of the
country, but speaking broadly each section is to be differentiated from
the others, and any man who maintains the contrary has not studied the
subject in all its details, which, by the way, are multitudinous.

In the far North, in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan (see Figs. 72,
96, and 131), there is a quarry of peculiar granulated quartzite
commonly known as “sugar quartz,” of which many implements are made.
There is also a beautiful milk-colored variation of quartzite. The
implements are of all sizes and types, the spear-heads being broad and
of delicate finish.

Mr. Charles E. Brown, chief of the Wisconsin Historical Society Museum,
says of the types in the Superior-Michigan country:—

“The flint implements of this region embrace nearly all of the numerous
forms common to the Ohio Valley and the Upper Mississippi Valley States.
In beauty of material and workmanship they are the equal of any produced
elsewhere. Many thousands of arrow- and spear-points, knives,
perforators, and scrapers have been collected from the fields, workshop-
and village-sites of the state. A small number of hammer-stones, saws,
spades, hoes, celts, and objects of unknown use have also been obtained.
Flint blanks, discs, and unfinished, broken, and rejected articles may
be collected from every local workshop-site. Caches or hoards of blanks,
or of finished implements, or of a mixture of both, have been unearthed
in many localities. These contain from a few to several hundred
specimens. They have been recovered from peat-bogs, the margins of
springs, the banks of streams and lakes, beneath the roots of trees,
beneath rocks, and in other places. Large numbers of flint implements
have occasionally been found with burials in mounds or graves.

“Chert of a suitable quality occurs in many localities in Wisconsin in
strata or in nodules and also in the glacial drift. Of this local
material the greater number of our flint implements are manufactured.
Quartzite is quite widely distributed in Wisconsin, and this stone was
also much utilized in implement making. It occurs in a variety of
beautiful colors, from white to bluish or greenish gray, and from light
brown through various shades of brown to a rich orange, and from a flesh
color to a bright carmine. Implements made of light brownish quartzite
are the most common and most widely distributed. Like other stone
implements, Wisconsin quartzites present all grades of workmanship and
finish. The majority are of ordinary workmanship, while others are
finely or beautifully chipped. What agate and obsidian artifacts are to
the West, quartzites are to Wisconsin. Quartzite quarries of small
extent have been found at several points in the state. Mr. William H.
Ellsworth of Milwaukee is the owner of an especially choice collection
of quartzite implements.

“In the Fox River Valley are obtained numbers of arrow-points and other
implements made of the rhyolite which occurs there. Implements made of
quartz are found in the same region and in smaller numbers elsewhere.
Implements made of chalcedony, agate, jasper, slate, sandstone,
limestone, and other stone are also found in Wisconsin.

“There is evidence to show that a considerable traffic in the finer
qualities of flint and other materials desired for the manufacture of
arrow- and spear-points, knives, etc., was carried on in prehistoric
times with tribes in outlying and distant regions. Excursions may also
have been made to points for the purpose of quarrying such stone. Thus
blue and brownish hornstone appears to have found its way to Wisconsin
over the trails from the quarries or deposits in Ohio and Indiana in the
form of blanks, discs, and nodules. Some finished implements were
probably also imported. Thousands of implements made of this hornstone
are widely distributed throughout Wisconsin. The choice ivory white and
pinkish flint appears to have come from Illinois or regions farther to
the south. Black flints entered from the same direction. Some of the
beautiful tortoiseshell-colored chalcedony so frequently employed here
may have been imported from localities in Minnesota or North Dakota. A
small number of obsidian implements have been recovered from mounds in
southwestern Wisconsin and from fields and sites elsewhere in the state.
Mr. Publius V. Lawson has published a list of some of these.

“There is much yet to be learned concerning the materials, extent and
direction and causes of this early inter-tribal commerce of the Upper
Mississippi Valley. The present lack of a greater knowledge is largely
due to the lack of state organization and intelligent coöperation on the
part of archæologists and students in the outlying states of Michigan,
Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota.

[Illustration:

FIG. 214_A_. (S. 1–1.) Spear-point of agate from a mound in Ramsey
County, North Dakota. H. Montgomery’s collection.
]

“Owing to the time and toil required to carefully examine the great
number of both public and private collections now existing and being
developed in Wisconsin, studies of the distribution of the numerous
local forms of flint implements have but been begun. It is, however,
possible to venture a few general statements concerning them. Thus
certain forms of arrow- and spear-points are found commonly in most
districts of the state, some are of much more common occurrence in
certain areas than in others, some appear to be limited in their
distribution to only certain restricted areas, and others are of
infrequent or rare occurrence everywhere. About Aztalan, in Jefferson
County, and in the region of the Madison lakes, there are obtained
specimens of a small notched triangular point which is also occasionally
provided with a deeply notched base. But very few examples of these
delicate and beautiful flint implements appear to have been found
elsewhere. In the latter region is found a small barbed point of choice
workmanship, with truncated barbs, and frequently with serrated edges.
It is wholly unknown or of very rare occurrence in most parts of
Wisconsin. Blue hornstone knives of the peculiar diamond shape have been
found sparingly by single examples or in caches, in many localities in
southern Wisconsin.

“A lack of space forbids the description of other forms of unusual
interest. In the Logan Museum, Milwaukee Public Museum, State Historical
Museum, the H. P. Hamilton, J. P. Schumacher, and several other
collections are to be seen specimens of a rare and beautiful form of
large flint ceremonial knife, which appears not yet to have been
described from other states. These implements are somewhat elliptical in
form, with a narrow square or slightly rounded base. All are finely
chipped of selected material, and are graceful and beautiful implements.
They range from nine to thirteen and a half inches in length and from
three to three and a half inches in width across the widest portion of
their blades. Most of the specimens, whose history it has been possible
to fully trace, have accompanied burials in graves, in some instances
associated with other implements.”

Illinois and Missouri were favorite camping- and hunting-grounds of
prehistoric man (see Figs. 54, 57, 181), and chipped implements are as
numerous in Illinois as in any state in the Union. The material is
yellow chert, white flint, nodular flint; hoes and spades abound. Many
flint celts occur and the flint art is high. Illinois and eastern
Missouri and northeastern Arkansas types are characterized by light
colors, broad thin blades, etc.

Iowa and western Missouri present implements of white flint which when
seen cannot be confused with those of other sections of the country, for
the form is peculiar (see Figs. 118 and 122). On the Plains, from the
Black Hills to the Arkansas River, large rough implements abound (see
Figs. 153 and 174) on certain sites, but generally the projectile points
are small and slender. The notched objects of flint, probably used as
axes, are common in certain sections. Scrapers are to be found
everywhere in this region.

The implements of the Rocky Mountains themselves might be separated into
three or four localities. There are so few collections from the Rocky
Mountains, south of the headwaters of the Columbia and the Missouri,
that I have not sufficient data on which to base accurate observations.
This will be secured, however, at some future time. Typical Mandan
spears and arrows are shown in Fig. 138. Colorado types and those from
elsewhere in the mountains are seen in Figs. 123, 134, and 153.

It appears that many of the scrapers, knives, and projectile points of
the Great Plains were made of material brought down from the mountains.
Naturally, the natives went to the nearest quarry sites, obsidian
ledges, or where chert and agatized wood and other flakable materials
were to be found.

[Illustration:

FIG. 215. (S. 7–8.) Egyptian points from near Cairo, Egypt. Presented
for comparison. Note how unlike any American forms. Of these 22,
only 6 are similar to the United States types. Material: finely
chipped, true brown flint. Age unknown. Collection of L. V. Case,
Tarrytown, New York.
]

Central and western Texas furnish slender points of yellow chert and
scrapers of the same material. But there are also projectile points of
white and red flint quite different from those of Kansas and Nebraska.
(See Figs. 119 and 189.) Arizona and New Mexico types are chiefly of
obsidian, yet there is chalcedony and agatized wood. (See Fig. 128.)
While Arizona and New Mexico chipped objects are of the same general
character as those from the Columbia River and its tributaries, yet,
usually, they can be distinguished. (See Figs. 97, 104, 110.) But there
are obsidian points in both regions identical in character.

The Pacific Coast furnishes more large implements than are to be found
between California and Tennessee. Illustrations of California types are
in Figs. 78, 136, and 151. There are also California forms which are
rare in the Columbia Valley. Obsidian was used almost exclusively in
California.

The sugar quartz of Wisconsin, and the pink quartz of Arkansas are
almost agates. The range in texture of the stone and color of all these
implements is considerable. Although mineralogists name many of them as
of one kind of stone, yet these implements can be distinguished, because
of peculiar color or markings or texture, by the naked eye. There is
nothing visionary about such differentiation. It is real and apparent.
The people of a given village-site, or of a given territory, obtained
their material from a certain ledge or quarry or river drift, and
neighboring tribes, two or three hundred miles away, went elsewhere for
their material.

I have referred on previous pages to the long flint objects from the
Middle South. Readers will do well to compare them with the best flint
abroad or elsewhere. It was necessary for the master workman who made
these objects to secure unusually long, clear blocks of flint, in which
were no imperfections. Where the material was obtained for these
specimens (some of which are twenty to twenty-two inches in length) is a
mystery. It was a simple task for the ancient workman to block out the
implement, leaving it spade-like in character, fairly thick, and
exhibiting a surface from which flakes an inch or more in size had been
chipped. The next step required, one may imagine, the combined efforts
of two or three skillful workmen.

Possibly they made use of simple levers and heavy bone tools, as Sellars
has stated, in order to detach the flakes. Pressure wrongly directed
would result in breaking the implement. The final chipping must have
been the work of one man, and doubtless it was performed by means of a
single bone flaking-tool. We can imagine with what care the master
workman proceeded. How many of these long thin blades he broke no man
may know.

[Illustration:

FIG. 216. (S. 1–3.) Mr. H. M. Braun’s collection, East St. Louis,
Illinois. This is a highly developed chipped object, with an
exceedingly keen cutting edge. It would appear to be a special
ceremonial axe. It belongs to the class of unknown objects of
remarkable form and workmanship.
]

Formerly, it was thought that native Americans could not have produced,
in flint, the equal of the slender flint daggers found in Scandinavia.
We now know—and have the specimens to prove it—that prehistoric man in
America was at least the equal, and possibly the superior, in point of
skill of Neolithic man in Europe.

Regarding the value that Indians attached to large flint or obsidian
objects, Mr. H. N. Rust of California, for many years interested in
archæology, presents a paper in the _American Anthropologist_, vol. VII,
no. 4, p. 688, which sheds some light on the matter. I quote a few
paragraphs:—

“During a canoe voyage on the Klamath and Trinity rivers in the northern
part of California, in 1898, the author had occasion to visit many
Indian villages, and took the opportunity to make special inquiry for
obsidian spears, knives, or swords, as they are commonly called. Ten in
all were seen and five procured. They measure from seven to fifteen
inches in length and from two to four inches in width, and are
beautifully chipped to the edge from end to end. In color the obsidian
is black, red, or gray.

“In almost every instance the owners were reluctant to show these
blades. All were carefully wrapped in redwood bark and carefully hidden
away, sometimes under the floor of the lodge, oftener outside beyond the
knowledge of any one except the owner. In one instance the owner could
not be induced to get his blade until nightfall, in order that no one
should learn of its hiding-place. This habit of secreting valuable
articles for safety no doubt accounts for such objects having been found
at times in isolated places remote from dwellings or burial-places....

“These obsidian blades pass from father to son, with hereditary rank,
and are retained with pride as heirlooms; consequently it was only by
much persuasion and considerable expenditure that they could be
obtained. In several instances the Indians regarded the blades as tribal
property, and in one case I found it impossible to persuade the holder
to part with the one in his possession at any price.”

Dr. A. L. Kroeber commented in the same number of the _Anthropologist_
at considerable length on Mr. Rust’s paper. I advise readers to read
both articles, and regret that I have not space to reproduce them in
full.

It would seem to me, however, that although these Indians still venerate
the large brown and red obsidian blades, it is because their traditions
tell them that such were considered very valuable as charms, or tribal
possessions of their ancestors. It would appear that these objects are
not regarded to-day in the same light as formerly, and that the original
office or meaning is lost sight of by the modern Indians.

Dr. Kroeber concludes his paper with these words:—

“These obsidian blades of the Indians of northwestern California have
been called, and in a measure are, sacred. Nevertheless the term can be
applied to them only qualifiedly. They are primarily objects of wealth.
Their display in important ceremonies, their preciousness, and the
general disposition of these Indians to connect exhibitions of wealth
and ceremonies, give to these objects certain associations of a
religious nature. They do not, however, appear to be sacred in the same
sense in which a small class of other objects, such as certain pipes,
fire-sticks, and similar ceremonial paraphernalia, which are used in a
purely ritualistic way and whose value lies entirely in this ritualistic
and traditionary use, are sacred. Like the white deerskins and
woodpecker scalp-ornaments, the obsidian blades are not used directly in
connection with any of the sacred formulas around which the deeper
religious life of these Indians clusters. There seems also to be very
little and probably no sense of their being charms or objects with a
fetish or medicine or animistic power. They are thus sacred in a very
different sense from the objects belonging to an altar of the Pueblo
Indians, or from the objects contained in a sacred bundle of the Plains
Indians. Their general position in the ceremonies and social life of the
Indians of northwestern California resembles more nearly that of the
coppers of the Indians of the North Pacific Coast.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 217. _(S. 1–1.)_

_A red and brown obsidian blade, found on the shore of
Goose Lake, California, by the Reverend H. C. Meredith, in
1905. H. K. Deisher’s collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania._
]

A study of chipped implements of the varieties presented in the
foregoing pages opens up a field of research of great possibilities. A
comparison of types, an examination of material—in other words, the same
technical work that classical scholars spend in research into certain
phases of Greek and Roman archæology—will lead to important results. For
instance, chips of a certain stone, which appear to have come from
Labrador, are said to be found occasionally in Maine or Massachusetts.
If this statement is true, it leads us to question whether the Eskimo
and the New England natives bartered, or whether there was a migration
in earliest times from Labrador to New England, or _vice versa_. Or,
whether the stone is found in New England as well as in Labrador.

The Ozark Mountain region, a strange country about sixty miles in
extent, where Dr. Peabody and myself found evidence of culture different
from any other existing in this country, contains two kinds of chipped
material: that found on the surface generally, and that which occurs in
the caves and caverns occupied by man. The one can be differentiated
from the other. Both might be called “flint,” or “chert,” and yet each
came from a different site and represents a different culture.

Entirely too much has been made of the fact that chipped implements of
various kinds have been seen in the possession of modern Indians the
past two hundred years. As an illustration of how the modern Indian has
drifted away from the past, and in support of my contention that his
present condition, while entertaining and interesting, is of little
value to archæology, I desire to call attention to one who is more
competent to pass upon this subject than many white persons who have
written regarding it. Dr. Charles A. Eastman, a full-blooded Sioux
Indian, himself a scholar who has given many years to a careful study of
the traditions of his own people, informs me that his grandfather
repeatedly stated that all the Sioux record-keepers were insistent in
their statements that the arrow- and spear-points found by them on the
Plains were made and used by earlier tribes, and that they always
considered them as “mystery stones” and had no tradition with regard to
their use.

I predict that the day is coming when our museums will be filled with
specimens; when most of the sites shall have been explored. Men will
then turn their attention to a detailed study of the chipped objects on
exhibition. They will make tables of these, they will measure them, they
will subdivide the materials, giving each a different name. At present
we call by the general term “chert” a dozen different colors and
textures which to the practiced eye represent different sites. The
precise meaning of all these forms and the reason for the selection of
colors or varieties, will some day, I am persuaded, become clear.

CHAPTER XV
GROUND STONE

POLISHED STONE HATCHETS OR CELTS—THE CLASSIFICATION OF HATCHETS, ADZES,
GOUGES, AND AXES

Under the general term “ground stone” fall all objects not chipped; as
well as utensils, weapons, ornaments, and artifacts not of copper, bone,
shell, mica, etc. The term “ground stone” would include axes, celts,
pestles, mortars, and a score of other types.

But I confine this and the next three chapters to the
celt-hatchet-axe-adze class of artifacts or tools, and have presented my
own classification of these.

Polished stone hatchets or celts are supposed to have been made and used
before man discovered that a grooved stone was more serviceable and
could be securely fastened in the handle. These objects have been the
subject of much study. My friend of many years standing, a distinguished
archæologist, the late Dr. Thomas Wilson of the Smithsonian Institution,
made axes and celts a study covering years. Excepting Professors Holmes
and Putnam, there is nobody to-day professionally engaged in archæology
in possession of Dr. Wilson’s technical knowledge of the use of stone
implements in ancient times. Dr. Wilson knew little about modern tribes,
and cared less. He was not an ethnologist, as was Professor Mason, but
he had labored for many years in the field in France, Italy, and Spain,
was familiar with archæological literature and in full sympathy with the
point of view of stone-age man.

Men who live in the present rather than the past cannot appreciate this
distinction. It is more than a fine distinction, as it is a broad and
true distinction. Dr. Wilson, while trained in archæology abroad, was
able to catch the correct point of view in American archæology. While
his classifications of the celt, axe, chipped stone, and so forth have
been enlarged and improved upon in recent years, yet to him belongs no
little credit.

Dr. Wilson’s papers on the celt and the axe (see Bibliography), and Mr.
Willoughby’s article in the _Anthropologist_, June, 1907, p. 296, on the
“Adze and Ungrooved Axe of the New England Indians,” are suggested to
students for reading.

Dr. Wilson treats almost exclusively of the axe and adze and celt in
prehistoric times. Mr. Willoughby illustrates prehistoric forms, but
cites all the early writers who have made reference to the celt.
However, none of these writers are clear as to whether tools used are
celts, adzes, hatchets, either grooved or ungrooved.

My classification of stone hatchets is as follows:—

_Stone Hatchets_

1. Ungrooved hatchets, or celts.

(a) Simple, oval pebble with a sharp edge. (Figs. 219–220.)

(b) Triangular hatchets, narrow poll, broad blade. (Fig. 221.)

(d) One side or surface convex, the reverse flat. (Figs. 225, 238.)

(e) As (d), except that one flat surface is sharply beveled towards
the edge. (Figs. 224, 241.)

(f) Blade flaring. (Figs. 233, 234.)

2. Adzes and gouges.

(a) Slightly hollowed, one side convex. (Fig. 239.)

(b) Deeply hollowed. (Figs. 242–243.)

_Grooved Axes_

(a) Groove entirely encircling specimen. (Figs. 248, 252.)

(b) Three fourths grooved; the back flat or hollowed. (Figs. 254,
257.)

(d) Double-edged, or double-bitted—grooved in the centre. (Figs. 274,
283, 284, 299, 300.)

(e) Double-grooved. (Figs. 282; one in 286, one in 257.)

The polished stone hatchet or celt is an implement much in use entirely
throughout the world, and we may doubt whether primitive man could have
existed without it. Celts served a multitude of purposes; the ruder ones
may be considered as general utility tools in use about the wigwams and
cabins. The more skillful worker in stone made very artistic as well as
serviceable celts and hatchets, usually paying particular attention to
the edge, which was often keen and sharp. Sufficient time and labor were
put on certain of the specimens to bring them to a high state of
perfection; to work out fancy or specialized forms.

[Illustration:

FIG. 218. (S. 1–3.) W. J. Martin collection, Leon, Kansas (p. 260).
]

Most archæologists suppose that primitive man made his first celts by
selecting water-worn pebbles of near the desired shape and grinding them
until sharp edges were obtained. Within the gravelly bed of any stream
were multitudinous stones, and as primitive man traveled about, his
attention was attracted to these, and it was but a natural conclusion
that he should make edged tools or weapons of them.

[Illustration:

FIG. 219. (S. about 1–6.) This represents six celts of hard, reddish
slate partly chipped, partly ground, from A. E. Kilbourne’s cabinet,
Connecticut. It may be said to mark the beginning of the ground
objects, for these celts might be placed under the classification of
chipped objects, although I have included them with the ground
stone.
]

The illustrations of the more simple forms of celts presented in this
chapter are of types from several portions of the country. The oval celt
was the most common of all, and occurred pretty much everywhere in the
United States except on the Pacific Coast and on the Great Plains. It is
not frequent in that part of New England lying east of Lake Champlain,
yet specimens are not wanting. But it is absent in the Ozark Mountains,
and quite rare in Texas. In the Mississippi Valley and the area drained
by Southern rivers, in the central East and valleys of the Hudson, the
Susquehanna, and Delaware, it occurs in great numbers. As one approaches
the East, celts diminish in the Connecticut Valley, and are less
frequent in the Merrimac, in the Penobscot, and the Kennebec regions.

[Illustration:

FIG. 220. (S. 1–3.) A group of celts from the Tidewater region,
Chesapeake Bay, Virginia and Maryland. Reproduced from the 15th
_Annual Report_ of the Bureau of Ethnology. Most of these,
especially the three at the lower right-hand corner, are oval forms
of polished stone hatchets. Such are the most common, and with these
my classification begins. All are typical specimens from the
Smithsonian collection. The edges are broad; the upper portions of
several show the work of hand-hammers.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 221. (S. 1–1.) This celt belongs in Class “B.” It is a typical
specimen from the collection of J. J. Snyder, Frederick, Maryland.
Such a celt would serve as a convenient hand-hatchet or tomahawk. It
is sharp, small, and could be conveniently carried on the war-path,
as the weight of the object and the handle, together, would not
exceed two or two and a half pounds. The small, sharp, triangular
hatchets I have always believed were weapons.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 222. (S. 1–3.) A plate of celts from the University of Vermont
collection, Burlington. All of these were found near Lake Champlain.
Several peculiarities are to be noted. The light-colored one in the
lower row was first chipped and then ground and polished. The celt
to the left, in the centre, is slightly indented on either side,
and, as will be shown elsewhere in this book, such forms are not
rare in New England. Five of these celts have straight sides. It is
not necessary that the sides should be equidistant from each other,
or that the poll should be exactly as wide as the blade, in order
that celts may be classified as having straight sides. By straight
sides, I mean sides which may be either sloping or straight, yet not
curved. A tapering celt, a celt with a flaring edge and other forms
may or may not have straight sides.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 224. (S. 1–3.)
]

It will be observed by the illustrations that celts, gouges, and stone
hatchets are all closely related. Yet celts may be subdivided into six
divisions, all of which are different. In adzes and gouges there are
three divisions; in axes, five. But some other observer might place in
two or three divisions what I have classed under C; for there are broad
adzes, broad celts, alike in character, which may or may not have a knob
on the back. There are also adzes slightly grooved, but not broad and
thin. Some celts are thick, and others chisel-like, or pick-shaped. Yet
in certain New England forms the distinguishing knob appears on the
back. An adze may be almost triangular in cross-section. It may have no
knobs on the back. Mr. Willoughby’s classification of these is presented
in three plates,—the first, celts; the second, adze-blades or gouges;
the third, adze-blades with grooves or knobs.

[Illustration:

FIG. 225. (S. 1–2.) Celts and unknown objects from the New York State
collection, Albany.
]

Fig. 218, from W. J. Martin’s collection, Leon, Kansas, exhibits pieces
of sandstone and limestone almost celt-like in form, yet which were used
for grinding and polishing. This illustrates how an ordinary stone could
be worked into a celt and that almost any series can be arranged
beginning with one type and ending with another.

It is easy for any archæologist to select a series of celts, beginning
with the oval form and ending with the spud-shaped implement. It is not
difficult to group the extremes. We hesitate over the specimens which
may be said to lie in the borderland of two divisions. One student would
place them in this class, and another observer might contend that they
belonged in that division.

The average celt is not large, although specimens have been found
weighing as much as fifteen or twenty pounds. Celts five and six pounds
in weight are not of rare occurrence, although they are by no means
common. Abnormally large celts, axes, and other cutting-tools seem to me
to indicate the skill of the aboriginal worker in stone, for it is quite
clear that it would be impossible to put to any practical use such
unwieldy stone implements.

The largest grooved mauls I have ever seen were found about the ancient
copper-mines of Lake Superior or in flint quarries.

Mr. H. M. Braun owns two beautiful specimens of large celts which are
shown in Fig. 228. The sizes have been indicated in white letters on the
specimens. A few similar ones have been found in Tennessee, but such are
rare. I would call attention to the slightly flaring edges of these
specimens and to the fact that they are not highly polished, which might
indicate that they are not finished.

There are chisel-shaped celts and celt-like implements sharp at either
end, the purpose of which is not clear. A number of these odd forms in
celt-like or pointed instruments are found in the Iroquois country. Dr.
William Beauchamp, the authority on archæology and ethnology of northern
New York, has referred to these peculiar forms and illustrated them in
the _Bulletin_ of the New York State Museum, vol. IV, no. 18. It may not
be out of place here to remark that the New York State Museum has
published many bulletins, eight of which are of special interest to
students of archæology and Indian history. These describe not only
polished stone articles and the chipped implements, but metallic
implements and ornaments, wampum, shell and bone, and also aboriginal
use of wood. I recommend all these to readers.

[Illustration:

FIG. 226. _(S. 1–1.)_

_Beautiful polished stone hatchets, from Andros and New Providence
Islands, Bahamas, West Indies; other objects from Tlaxcala, Mexico.
The central one is almost jade-like. The specimens are colored
accurately. Collection of B. W. Arnold, Albany, New York_.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 227. _(S. 1–1.)_

_A celt, a chisel, and four unknown forms in dark, highly polished
stone and obsidian. Celts from Andros and New Providence Islands,
Bahamas, West Indies; other objects from Tlaxcala, Mexico. The
original colors are reproduced. Collection of B. W. Arnold, Albany,
New York_.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 228. (S. 1–4.) Unusually large celts from Mr. Braun’s collection,
East St. Louis, Illinois. I have referred on a previous page to
celts such as these. There are quite a few in our museums,
particularly in the Washington, Chicago, Cambridge, and New York
collections. It is very seldom that they are highly finished;
usually they are a trifle rough, although there are instances in
which the specimen is brought to a high finish, as is the case of
the smaller polished stone hatchets. Whether these were tribal
possessions, or were made to show the skill of the worker in stone,
or were brought forth under certain conditions and placed in the
medicine lodge, I leave for others to decide.
]

In Fig. 225 I have reproduced from Dr. Beauchamp’s _Bulletin_ ten
specimens, ranging from a small wedge-shaped celt to three long
double-pointed instruments. The one to the right is sharply convex with
a flat base. To the extreme left is an elongated oval not very sharp at
either end. Next to it is an object with quite pointed ends. While these
are placed by me in the celt class, the four larger specimens are
scarcely celts.

[Illustration:

FIG. 229. (S. 1–3.) To the right is a remarkable celt. It is eighteen
inches long, 7 3–4 wide at the cutting edge. Made of dark
greenstone; weight, six pounds. To the left is a very slender celt
17 1–2 inches long. Largest circumference, 3 1–2 inches. The two
central ones are 10 1–2 and 9 3–4 inches. One is made of greenstone,
and the other of syenite. All are from Kentucky. B. H. Young’s
collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

Elsewhere in the United States, particularly in the St. Lawrence
Basin—which includes southern and eastern Canada and northern Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, northern Indiana and Ohio, a strip through
Pennsylvania and New York and the Lake Champlain region and a little of
New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, other specimens, but smaller than
these, though the same general type, are found. Sometimes they are so
blunt that they resemble commercial whetstones.

[Illustration:

FIG. 230. (S. 2–5.) This presents two views of a rare form of celt,
from the John Merkle collection, Bellevue, Iowa. The specimen
exhibits much use. It is just the opposite of the lower specimen
shown in Fig. 224, and illustrates that the Indian put the edge on
either end of an axe or celt blade to suit his fancy. It is quite
likely that Fig. 230 was mounted in a handle and used as a tomahawk.
The flaring blade is quite unusual. Drawn by Richard Herrmann.
Material: blue-black, close-grained, hard rock, probably diorite.
]

In Fig. 224 there are shown eight celts from the collection of Phillips
Academy, Andover. They come from various portions of the United States.
In the upper row at either side are typical oval celts, with this
difference, that the one to the right has a broad cutting edge, and the
one to the left is quite convex, with poll and edge of equal width. This
approaches the chisel type. In the centre of the top row is a roughly
pecked, unpolished celt, the poll of which is narrowed for the purpose
of fitting it into a handle.

[Illustration:

FIG. 231. (S. about 1–3.) Reproduced from Baron G. Nordenskiöld’s
“Cliff-Dwellers of the Mesa Verde,” pl. 36.
]

In the central row are three celts. (Class D.) The surfaces presented in
the figure are flat, and beveled off toward the edge; the other surface
being convex. In the lower row is a small chisel-like celt with wide
poll or top, and narrow cutting edge.

Such specimens as are shown in Fig. 225 are not only celts, but stone
tools which are pointed at either end. If space permitted, I should be
glad to present more of these implements, for they range from long,
slender, pointed tools to celts, and include many objects which other
observers might place in the problematical class.

Aside from three of them shown in Fig. 225, there are illustrated two in
Figs. 237, 238. There is also a large specimen about a foot in length in
the Andover collection. Dr. Beauchamp says of Fig. 225:—

“The figure to the left is reduced in size to about one half, as are
also the nine other specimens in the illustration. This left-hand figure
is of a rare and peculiar celt, several of which have been found. They
are very slender, usually nearly cylindric, and more or less pointed at
each end. Sometimes the material seems too frail for use. It is angular
and four-sided, but the angles are rounded, and the points likewise. It
tapers to each end, and shows no signs of use. The material is a
polished dark gritty slate, from Seneca River.

[Illustration:

FIG. 232. (S. 1–3.) A stone celt mounted in a wooden handle. From the
collection of the Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts. This was
found on the Northwest Coast, and was in use among natives many
years ago, and was brought to the Salem institution by a “whaler,”
as were many other specimens in the Salem collections.
]

“The figure to the right might be classed as an adze. One surface is
nearly a plane, and the other curves to each sharp end. It is of
sandstone, from Brewerton, N. Y., and a rare form for the size.”

All through the Cliff-Dweller country the celts almost approach knives
in character. In Fig. 231 we observe three fine stone celt-like knives
from ruins in southwestern Colorado. They all have broad cutting-blades
and narrow polls.

So much has been written with reference to the use of celts that I shall
not present a lengthy paper upon them. One may dismiss them briefly by
stating that the principal uses were: The lighter ones in short handles
were used as weapons or tomahawks and as hand-hatchets in killing game;
larger ones were used for cutting down trees, splitting soft wood,
chopping ice (fish-holes), and general use about the wigwam. The
Bibliography cites numerous articles on hatchets and celts, in which the
authors tell us in great detail regarding the use of these necessary
implements.

[Illustration:

FIG. 233. (S. 1–3.) presents three beautiful flint celts from Mr.
Braun’s collection. These were originally chipped and afterwards
ground and polished. The edges on them are as keen as the polished
flint hatchets found in Europe. Such specimens as these, which are
often found in the Tennessee graves or in mounds, are not to be
classed as mere tools. They are more of the nature of problematical
forms in flint which were discussed under “Conclusions as to Chipped
Objects” in Chapter XIV. 1733, polished chalcedony; 1735, polished
greenstone; 1725, yellow quartzite.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 234. (S. 2–5.) Two polished celts from the collection of B. H.
Young, Louisville, Kentucky. Particular attention is called to the
one to the left, which shows that the edge is worked out angularly.
]

Professor George H. Perkins, of the University of Vermont, furnishes me
with some notes on the celts of his region:—

“I do not think that the celts of this region exhibit any peculiar
characteristics which distinguish them from those of other localities.
We have none as large as have been found elsewhere. Rarely is there one
over a foot long, and the majority are not more than five to eight
inches in length. Some are very small, not more than two or three inches
long. Some of these little celts are finely made, and of various shapes.
While most of these implements are at least fairly well made, there are
some that are very coarse and clumsy. These are usually made from quartz
pebbles.”

Mr. Charles E. Brown writes of the principal classes of Wisconsin celts
as follows:—

“Poll rounded, square, or pointed. General shape conical, oval, or
square. Roughly made, smooth, or polished. A few of the larger examples
have the blade roughened near the poll by pecking; presumably for the
better attachment of the handle. These specimens range in weight from a
few ounces to ten or more pounds. Thousands have been found in
Wisconsin.

“Oblong celts occur especially in the Rock River Valley. There are fine
series of these in the Milwaukee Public Museum, in the Logan Museum, and
in the State Historical Museum. A few are bell-shaped in outline.

“Handled celts. These have the lower portion or the lower half of the
blade slightly elevated over the remainder, thus providing a convenient
handle. A few examples of these have been found in Wisconsin.

“Fluted celts. A few examples of celts so ornamented have been found.
The finest specimen is in the State Historical Museum. Another is in the
Logan Museum, at Beloit. A specimen has been found in Michigan, and one
in Canada.

“Long narrow chisel-shaped celts occur in many Wisconsin collections.
They are square, oval, or circular in section. Some are nine or more
inches in length.”

CHAPTER XVI
GROUND STONE

THE ADZE AND THE GOUGE

The adze and the gouge are peculiar to New England and northeastern
Canada. The adze is also found in British Columbia and in the Northwest.

[Illustration:

FIG. 235. (S. 1–6.) To the right is a beautiful celt with straight
sides, one surface convex, the other flat—Class D under celts. The
next specimen is a celt very slightly grooved, and marks the
beginning of the gouge (Class II, A). The next specimen to the left
is a broader gouge, while the one to the extreme left is ridged and
slightly hollowed on the reverse side. All from Maine, except the
one to the left. From A. E. Mark’s collection, Yarmouth, Maine.
]

The New England specimens seem to be more properly hafted celts than
plain celts. Of course there are multitudes of grooved axes found in New
England, but as a rule they may be distinguished from the axes west of
the Allegheny Mountains. The New England celt is like the Western celt,
but there are few New England celts, and the native in New England not
only made use of axes, but he put on his celt a knob, or a ridge, or two
ridges, or two knobs, thereby distinguishing it from the average celt.

In the Ohio Valley there are none of the gouges or ridged celts, and
aboriginal man was content with simple forms. Yet he worked his simple
forms into high-grade tools, as we shall see. This emphasizes the
development of given types in certain localities rather than that man
first employed an oval pebble which he edged and then developed the
gouge, the specialized celt, or a grooved axe. Were this not true,
should we not find gouges and ridged celts in the Ohio Valley? Certain
art forms were developed in certain localities if not elsewhere. The
progress was not along the same lines, or, I am persuaded, of the same
time period in all places.

As to the above specimens, I quote from Henry A. Crosby, who wrote about
the triangular stone adze in the _Wisconsin Archeologist_, vol. II, no.
4, July, 1903:—

“Among the several interesting and well established classes of
aboriginal pecked stone implements which it may be claimed with more or
less truth are especially characteristic of Wisconsin archæological
districts, may be mentioned the so-called triangular stone adzes.

“So far as the author has been able to ascertain, no description of
these implements, of which a considerable number have been collected
from local camp- and village-sites and are at present contained in
Wisconsin cabinets, has yet appeared in any of the numerous works and
periodicals devoted to North American archæology. There is some doubt in
the author’s mind whether Mr. Gerard Fowke was acquainted with this
type. Certainly his description of adze-form celts can hardly be
construed to include it. (‘Stone Art,’ pp. 79–80.) Curiously enough Mr.
Warren K. Moorehead has also omitted to mention them in his late work,
‘Prehistoric Implements.’ This being the case, a general description of
the type is given herewith.

[Illustration:

FIG. 236. (S. about 1–2.) Presents a gouge eleven and a half inches
long and two inches wide. It is sharpened at either end, slightly
hollowed, and was found not far from Davenport, Iowa. This specimen
must be a stray and brought in by means of trade or exchange.
Material: dark gray granitic stone. Collection of the State
Historical Department of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa.
]

“They are of a general elongated elliptical shape, one extremity
narrowing to and terminating in a pronounced blunted point and the other
in a somewhat broadly rounded fairly sharp cutting-edge. The most
noticeable feature of these implements is the generally well curving
central ridge which traverses the top or back from the narrow pointed
extremity to within several inches of the cutting-edge.

“From the termination of the ridge the surface slopes or bevels off
quite broadly to the cutting-edge. The pecked surfaces on either side of
the ridge are slightly rounded or nearly flat and slope away quite
sharply to the edges of the base on either side, thus giving the more or
less pronounced triangular transverse section from which the implement
takes its name.

[Illustration:

FIG. 237. (S. 2–7.) This is a drawing of a double-edged celt. A
similar one is in the Andover collection, from northern Ohio, and I
believe that numbers have been found elsewhere in the country. It is
owned by S. R. Turner, Riverside, Rhode Island.
]

“Less labor appears to have been expended upon the flat, sometimes
curving or arching, bases of these adzes. The surface is generally
rough, with the exception of a slight concavity or polished plane
surface extending back from the cutting-edge for a distance of from one
and one half to three inches.

“These adzes vary in length from six to eighteen inches. The average
length, however, appears to be somewhat less than one foot and the
extreme width about two and three fourths inches.

“The specimen illustrated (Fig. 238) is the property of Mr. W. H.
Ellsworth of Milwaukee.

“Fig. 1 (upper figure) was obtained at Elkhart Lake, in Sheboygan
County. It is eleven and one fourth inches in length. The extreme height
is two inches and the extreme width of the base one and seven eighths
inches. The material is probably diabase. It weighs one and five eighths
pounds.

“The implement represented in Fig. 2 (lower figure) presents a slight
modification of the usual type. The ridge on the back is smooth and
broadly flattened, one half inch wide at the middle and broadens out
rapidly at either extremity. The cutting-edge is in good condition, the
opposite extremity being somewhat blunted and slightly fractured. The
sides are roughly smoothed.

[Illustration:

FIG. 238. (S. 2–5.) This shows two of the double-edged celts; one with
ridges and flattened back, the other convex above and flat
underneath.
]

“This specimen measures eight and one half inches in length and is one
and one half inches high and wide at the middle. It weighs about one and
one fourth pounds. The material is diorite. Locality, Kilbourn, Columbia
County.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 239. (S. 1–3.) Eight gouges from the University of Vermont,
Burlington, Vermont.
]

In the October-December, 1909, _American Anthropologist_, Professor
George H. Perkins, speaking of gouges, says:—

“Although by no means confined to the Champlain Valley, the gouges may
be regarded as very characteristic of this region, for unless I am in
error, they are found here more abundantly and in greater variety than
elsewhere.

“None of our specimens, not even the best ‘banner-stones,’ are more
beautifully finished or of handsomer material than some of the best of
our gouges. As is true of other objects, there are all grades of
rudeness or elegance in these. As a class, however, the gouges are more
carefully shaped and more perfectly finished than most other implements.
Indeed, some are so finely finished, of such attractive material, and so
apparently unused that it is very difficult to conjecture for what
purpose they were made. One of these is shown by the longest in Fig.
253. This is as perfect in all respects, except a recent break at the
top, as when it left the maker. If this and others like it were of hard
stone, it would be more easy to think of some use to which they could
have been put. They are of only moderately hard talcose slate, often of
a greenish drab color, and could not be used for any hard work without
very evident abrasion, and yet most of them do not show anything of the
sort. The surface is not only smooth, but well polished and the edge is
sharp.

[Illustration:

FIG. 240. (S. 1–4.) Five gouges from the collection of L. G. Ogden,
Penn Yan, New York. From Yates and Ontario counties, New York.
Material: dark gray sandstone, greenstone.
]

“While, as has been noticed, great variety occurs in the shape of the
gouges in general, these are long, slender, flat, or slightly concave on
the upper side and strongly carinate on the other, so that a
cross-section has the form of a narrow, sharply pointed arch. The groove
may, as in the figure, extend throughout the whole length, or only part
way. The specimen figured is fourteen inches and a half long and rather
more than an inch and a half across the edge. There are other gouges
that are several inches longer, but by far the larger number are much
shorter. Perhaps six or eight inches may be taken as the average length
of the gouges of this region.

[Illustration:

FIG. 241. (S. 1–3.) These are front and side views of beveled celts.
The gouge is from Province Ontario, Canada. The side view of the
beveled celt illustrates clearly my Class E, under ungrooved
hatchets.
]

“These finer examples are usually longer. Evidently great care and labor
were expended in fashioning such gouges as the long one figured, and
they must have been made for some important purpose, but what that
purpose was I cannot imagine. Diligent search in various old accounts
which early explorers have left us has failed to bring any satisfactory
explanation of these singular objects.

“But however these were used, there can be no doubt as to the use of
most of the gouges. By far the larger portion are of hard stone, well
fitted to endure rough service. As the figures in Fig. 253 show, the
groove is sometimes short and shallow, sometimes deep and long. In a few
it is triangular, as in the middle specimen on the left. This also is an
example of a sort of chisel-gouge. In these, of which we have a number
of specimens, one end is hollowed and curved to form a regular gouge
edge, while the other is straight and beveled to form a chisel. More
rarely, both ends are hollowed, and of course in these the groove runs
from end to end. As to the use for which the gouges were usually
intended, there have been numerous suggestions, but none is entirely
satisfactory.

“In one of his accounts Champlain speaks of seeing Indians on the coast
of Maine making canoes, dug-outs, etc., by charring a properly prepared
log and scraping out the burned portions, then charring again, and thus
by alternate charring and scraping, they accomplished the desired end.
Water poured over portions of the wood that were to be retained confined
the burning, which was done with hot stones, to the part to be
hollowed.[5]

“No theory of the use of these gouges so well explains the excellent
condition in which most of them are found as does the one that they were
used chiefly in excavating or cutting where wood had been more or less
charred. Among considerably more than a hundred of these specimens that
have been found in this region, by far the greater number do not show
much, if any, effect of use.”

Willoughby reports that in the Maine graves he found two, four, or even
six adze-blades with certain interments. As some were large, others
small, he concludes, “... two or more of different sizes and both of
types with varying degrees of edge curvature were often the property of
a single individual.”

It is an utter impossibility to present, in this volume, all the
illustrations and information on adzes and gouges in my possession. It
will be observed by readers, I have more than once in “The Stone Age”
lamented that there is not sufficient space in these pages to describe
all the types of certain artifacts.

There are some unusual specimens which defy classification. One of them
is presented in Fig. 244.

Four strange objects are presented in Fig. 245. These do not belong in
the adze or celt class. Yet they are all edged or pointed. As my
problematical class occupies a great deal of space, I have inserted this
figure here.

[Illustration:

FIG. 242. (S. 1–3.) Five beautiful gouges from the collection of A. E.
Marks, Yarmouth, Maine. These present the best types of long slender
gouges in Maine. The Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts forms
are not different.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 243. (S. 1–3.) Gouges from A. E. Marks’s collection, Yarmouth,
Maine. Some of these were found in graves. All are from Maine,
except one of the central figures.
]

Colonel Young sent me the originals of these specimens for examination
in 1900. They are of dark, reddish-brown stone. It appears like very
fine sandstone or graphite slate. Regarding these specimens, Colonel
Young says:—

“I do not know for what purpose these were used. I sent them to the
Smithsonian Institution for them to determine the nature and character
of the stone, but they could give me no satisfactory statement of what
they were or where they came from. These three articles were found in a
niche of a rock in Pine Mountain, Bell County, Kentucky. At the same
time several arrow-heads were found. I have been able to obtain but one
of the arrow-heads. The stone is unusual and the finish is also very
fine. They were found by a coal-miner, who gave them to a physician,
from whom I got them at Jellico, Kentucky. I know nothing of their
history except the statements of the men as given to me, but they are
handsome specimens and I value them highly.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 244. (S. 1–1.) This is one of those unusual celt-like,
problematical forms, having a depression in the centre. This was
found by Clarence B. Moore, in a mound at Keno Plantation, Morehouse
Parish, Louisiana, and I am indebted to him for the loan of the
illustration.
]

A review of the illustrations in two preceding chapters convinces one
that nearly all the celts, adzes, and gouges may be grouped
satisfactorily. But here and there we find specimens illustrated on the
previous pages which indicate specialization, or particular effort on
the part of the maker. These, of course, are open to questions as to
where one should include them. That they meant a great deal to the mind
of the Stone-Age man, no one can deny.

[Illustration:

FIG. 245. (S. 1–3.)
]

There were two or three methods of mounting celts in handles. The
ordinary hatchet-blade was set so that the edge was parallel to the
handle. This is the natural way of mounting a tool used in cutting or
striking. The small celts, serving as scrapers, and also adzes, were set
at right angles to the handles.

The latter style of mounting was customary among the tribes of the Rocky
Mountains, and on the Great Plains. I present several original bone
handles from the Mandan sites in the chapter on bone implements, in
Volume II. Again, gouges and long cutting-blades were mounted in wooden
handles of various lengths, the blades being set at an angle which
varied according to necessity. As to how adzes and gouges were mounted,
Mr. Willoughby is clear in his excellent article on “The Adze and the
Ungrooved Axe of the New England Indians,” cited on a previous page.

[Illustration:

FIG. 246. (S. 2–3.) This is from the collection of S. E. Turner,
Riverside, Rhode Island, and is one of those polished hafted
hatchets which defies classification. It is angular, highly
polished, keen of edge, and symmetrical. The illustration describes
it better than can any words of mine.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 247. (S. 1–2.) From the collection of Charles A. Perkins,
Wakefield, Massachusetts. It was found near Wakefield. There are
seven small elevations on the back of this gouge.
]

A study of specimens in handles in the various museums from caves,
caverns, cliff-houses, and the Northwest country, convinces one that
these were usually fastened with sinews, and often gummed in order to
make them more secure. The narrow part of the implement was usually
uppermost. The reason for this is obvious, for when the native used the
tool, the harder he worked the more firmly it became fastened in the
handle. Specimens with broad tops and narrow cutting edges were
doubtless used in the hand and not mounted in a handle.

Mr. Brown reports that a small number of gouges and adzes have been
found in Wisconsin.

CHAPTER XVII
GROUND STONE

GROOVED STONE AXES

It will be seen by reference to page 252 that these are placed under
five classifications.

The grooved axe is as widely distributed throughout the United States as
the celt, and the form varies quite as much. Axes of the following
localities may be differentiated: New England, the South, the
Cliff-Dweller country, the Ohio Valley, the Wisconsin-Michigan region,
Pennsylvania. In all of these sections there are certain types of axes
not found elsewhere.

The first incentive to the native in making a grooved axe was to obtain
an implement of practical service, and which could be securely fastened
in the handle. That was his primary object. Otherwise he would not have
used grooved axes at all, but confined himself to celts, chisels, and
gouges.

Axes are of all sorts. There is the very rough chipped axe of slate, or
chert, or limestone which it is almost impossible to decide whether it
was a digging-tool, or something to be used in quarrying, or a defensive
tool, or for domestic purposes. Certainly, the very rough axe with dull
edges could not be made use of in felling trees, in making canoes, or
anything of that sort. The small light axes with sharp edges, such as
are common in various portions of the United States, were doubtless used
as hand-hatchets and carried on hunting or war expeditions, just as were
the polished stone hatchets referred to on a previous page. As to the
various forms of axes, I do not believe that form in a stone axe carries
the significance that form does in problematical stones, pipes, or
chipped implements. Axes are seldom, if ever, found in mounds or graves.
Celts do occasionally occur in burial-places. But axes, more than celts,
were utility tools, and do not, to my mind, carry any significance as
objects made use of in ceremonies. Naturally, the larger axes required
special care in lashing them to handles of hickory, or oak, or other
pliable woods. It is quite likely that small straight limbs were cut off
near a knot, an aperture hollowed-out in the knot, and the celt or other
object inserted. We know that the New England tribes made bowls of the
knots taken from trunks of maples, and that these bowls were firm and
lasted for a considerable length of time. It was a slow and laborious
process, the hollowing-out of these knots, but we are advised by early
writers that the Indian accomplished it. Clubs of hard wood, with a knot
at the end, are favored weapons among the aborigines all over the world,
and it is quite likely that in America ancient man made use of them and
inserted small celts.

[Illustration:

FIG. 248. (S. 1–1.) The ordinary grooved hand-hatchet shown here is
from the collection of J. J. Snyder, Frederick, Maryland. The edge
is moderately sharpened; the upper part shows the work of the stone
hammer. I present the specimen full size. There are thousands of
this form in the United States, and they are typical general utility
tools, and also served as weapons. The size is convenient, the
specimen is light.
]

In discussing celts, gouges, and adzes, I said almost nothing about the
material out of which these were manufactured. Fortunately, our friends
the geologists and mineralogists have devoted some time to this subject.

Professor George L. Collie, Dean of Beloit College and Curator of the
Logan Museum, prepared a paper which is published in the _Wisconsin
Archeologist_, June-September, 1908. The title of this is “Aboriginal
Discrimination in the Selection of Materials for Tools.” I reproduce
sections of it here, as it describes the various stones selected by
aboriginal man.

[Illustration:

FIG. 249. (S. 1–6.) In this figure I have shown five of the
Connecticut axes from A. E. Kilbourne’s collection. So far as type
is concerned these might have been found in Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, or eastern Canada, for they are typically New England.
The ones at the right and the left show scarcely any traces of
chipping, but the centre ones have been chipped and later ground and
polished. These are of Class “A,” the groove entirely encircling the
specimen, yet the groove on the surfaces is very slight, but
pronounced and deep at the edges.
]

I would call attention to Professor Collie’s able paper, because he
comments not only on these implements from the point of view of a
geologist, but also adds no little to our sum of archæological
knowledge:—

“Under this head it is my desire to discuss some evidences that the
American aborigine exercised deliberate choice when he picked out
materials for the manufacture of artifacts.

“Stone had to be shaped by some one or more of five processes as is well
known. These manual arts, as stated by Holmes, are as follows: (1)
Fracturing by splitting, breaking, flaking; (2) bruising by battering,
pecking, bushing; (3) abrading by grinding, rubbing, polishing; (4)
incising by cutting, piercing, drilling; (5) modeling by stamping or
hammering. These shaping arts called for different types of material in
several instances and this necessitated choice on the worker’s part at
the outset. He not only needed to know what kind of an artifact he was
to make, but which of the several processes he was to employ before he
finally settled upon the material he would use. Man learned by slow
degrees and by experience the nature of rock properties. He learned to
distinguish between different types of rocks much as a modern geologist
does in the field by taking account of two features, namely: (1) The
mineralogical composition; (2) the texture of the rock. I do not mean to
imply that early man was absolutely guided by the quality of the rock;
other factors entered into the choice, but rock character was always a
prominent factor.

[Illustration:

FIG. 250. (S. 1–6.) Illustrates 14 axes from the collection of J. A.
Rayner, Piqua, Ohio. These were all found in the Miami Valley about
Piqua. Five of them are of Class “A,” the others, Class “B.” They
are typical Ohio axes, for the most part large and heavy. Such, it
is not supposed, were carried any distance, but were used about the
camp or in the woods.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 251. (S. about 1–3.) It seems to me that not a few axes were made
from chipped or broken fragments of rock. Doubtless some were the
result of working down rejects or angular fragments. But most of
them are water-worn pebbles, slightly flat, and generally oval. The
axe owned by S. D. Mitchell, of Ripon, Wisconsin, and shown in this
figure, is a splendid example of the pebble grooved, pecked, and
ground to an edge. This implement is just as serviceable as the
highly polished axe. Moreover, the form is slightly adze-like. The
longer it was in use, the more even and polished would become the
surfaces.

Throughout New England and Pennsylvania there are many
axes which might be placed in the class of chipped objects; for a
chipped object may be an axe as well as something else. And for
that matter there are shell and bone arrow-heads, yet they are not
placed in the class, “chipped objects.”
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 252. (S. 1–3.); showing two broad, short axes from near Salem,
Massachusetts. The material is porphyry and diorite. Both of these
were originally much longer, became broken, and were worked down.
Peabody Museum, Salem, collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 253. (S. 1–6.) Two ordinary short axes and three long narrow axes
approaching the grooved gouge in form. At the top is a narrow
double-edged celt-like object. Collection of A. E. Kilbourne, East
Hartford, Connecticut.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 254. (S. 1–4.) Illustrating six axes from the collection of W. A.
Holmes of Chicago. Five are of the flat back and one with the groove
entirely surrounding the specimen. The ridges on either side of the
grooves are of varying prominence. These six axes are from Indiana,
Illinois, and Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 255. (S. 1–3.) Two large axes from the collection of H. M. Braun,
East St. Louis, Illinois. The specimen to the left is of Classes “B”
and “C,” being both grooved and pointed. Similar large axes have
been found in Ohio, and one or two weighing as much as twenty pounds
are in the Smithsonian collection, and one of about sixteen pounds
in the collection of the Ohio State University.
]

“All artifacts are the resultant of an interaction between several
factors,—character of the rock, need of the worker, form of the blank
selected, skill of the worker. If the tool-maker was in a hurry for a
utensil he would be likely to choose material easier to work than
ordinarily would be the case,—material that he could shape hurriedly. If
he were not skilful he would spend time to look for a blank that was a
close approximation to the desired tool, that he might be spared the
necessity of shaping it with his unskilled fingers. This would often
mean the selection of poorer material than might have been the case
under different circumstances. Primitive man, as a recent writer has
pointed out, had to exercise more real mental acumen and sagacity, had
to be more agile and alert and bring into action more varied qualities
of mind and body in order to live, than the great mass of our present
population. He used his mind and his judgment in the selection of
materials, he weighed all of the pros and cons in the choice of
materials for artifacts, just as he did in all the concerns of life. A
prevailing notion that he picked up any old stray piece of rock that
came conveniently to his hand is a mistake; his choices were results of
purpose and intellectual effort. To illustrate my position, allow me to
select one type of tool, the grooved axe, and discuss the choice of
materials for that particular utensil. It must be borne in mind that
early man in Wisconsin rarely used quarried material for axes, he sought
rather for water-worn or ice-worn cobbles, and made the axe from these
partially shaped and polished forms. It must also be remembered that
there are three general classes of rocks, viz.: the igneous, clastic,
and the metamorphic. The igneous rocks are of two general types, the
coarser-grained intrusives, such as the granites, and the finer textured
extrusives like basalts and their close relatives the diabases, though
the latter is often quite coarsely crystalline.

[Illustration:

FIG. 256. (S. 1–4.) This illustrates nine grooved objects from the
collection of W. A. Holmes of Chicago. The one to the right, lower
row, grooved in the centre and either edge sharpened, is of Class
“D.” The upper row, second from the right, double-grooved, Class
“E.” In the lower row is a large grooved hammer. The two axes in the
upper row to the left are highly polished and show evidence of much
use.
]

“In selecting material for axes the aborigine employed both types of
igneous rocks.

“Clastic rocks are of two general types, those deposited in solution
from water and those deposited from mechanical suspension. Flint, chert,
etc., are examples of the former; sandstone, limestone, etc., are
instances of the latter. The aborigine rarely used this type of rock for
axes. The metamorphic rocks are made from the two preceding types by
heat and pressure. They have certain structural features, as a rule,
such as cleavage and fissility. There is a banded arrangement of the
material not due to deposition but to dynamic action; hence arises the
familiar banded structure of such metamorphic rocks as gneiss and
schist. This type of rock was used by early man for axes to some extent.
Nine tenths of the axes in a given collection are made of igneous rocks,
and the great bulk of the igneous rocks used are the fine textured
rocks, especially basalt and diabase. No rock is better suited for
pecking and polishing than the finer grained igneous rocks, nor on the
whole are any more resistant to fracture, none are tougher. These are
qualities of prime importance in axes. The very fact that so large a
percentage of axes are made of the best obtainable material is
significant of the fact that early man deliberately sought for certain
qualities and looked until he found them.

“It shows how truly he was a judge of rock composition and texture, of
the suitableness of any given rock for a given purpose. Let us consider
in more detail some of the features which he sought, or those which he
rejected. In selecting a rock for axe purposes, other things being
equal, he would take first of all a quartzless type. If it were a
question between granite, which contains quartz, and syenite, which has
little, he would almost invariably select the latter. You very rarely
see an axe made of quartz-bearing rock in this region. The axe-maker was
aware apparently of the hardness of the mineral, of the difficulty with
which it was worked, and he naturally avoided rocks that contained it in
abundance when seeking axe material. He recognized the mineral, because
in rocks which have such similarities as syenite and granite he chose
the former, that is, he did not depend upon color or texture alone to
guide him, but he must have looked for that glassy mineral that we call
quartz.

[Illustration:

FIG. 257. _(S. about 1–4.)_

_Grooved stone axes of various types. Localities: Missouri, Illinois,
Kentucky. F. P. Graves’s collection, Doe Run, Missouri._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 258. (S. 1–2.), from the Phillips Academy collection, indicates
the infinite variety of axes. These may be classed under “A,” “B,”
and “C,” and yet each possesses an individuality of its own.
Particular attention is called to the two lower specimens, which are
beautiful examples of axes in stone.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 259. (S. 1–3.) Grooved axe, long slender type. C. D. Romig’s
collection—Audenried, Pennsylvania. In this specimen the groove is
slightly diagonal, a peculiarity noted in a number of instances in
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin axes.
]

“Though he used quartz abundantly for other purposes we do not find him
selecting the massive forms of that mineral for axes except
occasionally. Then again the axe-maker selects rocks that are relatively
free from mica. Rocks rich in that mineral are used for pendants and
ceremonials, but not for axes or other tools that have to undergo hard
usage. Micaceous rocks flake readily, and they also show a marked
tendency to disintegration through hydration. Here again the aborigine
recognized a mineral which contributed undesirable qualities to a rock
and he rejected it. Again he refrained from using coarse-grained types
of rocks, as a rule. He chose rather those of fine and even texture. The
only common exception in Wisconsin is the employment of feldspar
porphyry where the porphyritic crystals are sometimes of fair size. The
crystals in coarse-grained rocks have coarse structural planes. They
tend to fracture along such planes readily, and fragments will break out
from the parent mass and mar if not ruin the tool. Experience taught
early man the inefficiency of such materials and his judgment, of which
we are speaking, kept him from wasting his time in experimenting with
them.

[Illustration:

FIG. 260. (S. 1–4.) An illustration which presents two axes from the
collection of A. E. Marks, Yarmouth, Maine. The one to the left has
the same sloping groove noted in Fig. 259. This form of groove is
intentional.
]

“Again the aborigine avoided the use of rocks that contain gneissic and
schistose structures. Rocks that contain well developed planes of any
sort are obviously unfit for axes, as they tend to split along these
structural planes and become unfitted for use; hence, metamorphic rocks
are not useful for axes and are not commonly employed save the
greenstone, a metamorphosed igneous rock which was used quite
extensively by axe-makers along the shore of Lake Michigan, especially
in the neighborhood of Manitowoc and Sheboygan. Greenstone possesses a
fine texture. It is hard and tough and forms an ideal material in many
respects, but it has this one drawback, it does contain a great many
structural planes, and the axe sooner or later comes to grief. How
rarely a greenstone axe is well finished, the aborigine knew all too
well that in some unexpected hour it would break. If ninety per cent of
our Wisconsin axes are made of igneous rocks, about eight per cent
perhaps are made of metamorphic rocks, while the remaining two per cent
are formed from sedimentary rocks of various types, chiefly sandstone
and limestone. The latter were not used if any better material were at
hand, and axes made of this material are generally found in the
southwest portion of the state in the Driftless region, where better
material was and is scarce, and where it was often necessary to use the
local limestone or sandstone. Clastic rocks lack the cohesion and
hardness that is desirable in axes; they break easily, become dull very
readily and need constant attention. Aborigines did not restrict
themselves to this somewhat limited choice of materials from volition.
Wherever opportunity afforded he selected unusual types of rock and thus
showed his desire for variety and wide range of materials. This is shown
by his employment of jadeite, hematite, actinolite, etc., wherever they
were obtainable. It is noticeable that in this country, the axe-maker
sought a type of material that could be pecked and polished. He did not
use flaking material very abundantly, but just the reverse seems to be
true in Europe. This may be due partly to the fact that a better grade
of flint is found in Europe than here, and it is obtainable much more
readily in the soft chalk than in limestone, or it may be due to an
entirely different trend in culture. In contrast to the selection of
materials for axes, we find that the large hammers or bone crushers,
etc., were made of a greater diversity of materials, in which
quartz-bearing rocks are not infrequent. The aim seemed to be to select
a cobble as near to the desired shape as possible without much reference
to material. Comparatively little work needed to be done upon these
types beyond pecking a groove. On the other hand, in pestles and
mortars, we find that tough, fine-grained, quartzless rocks of igneous
origin are employed, as a rule, though the use of fine limestones is not
unusual. Here again there seems to be an avoidance of quartz-bearing
rocks, possibly because they disliked the coarse grit which would
inevitably arise when such rocks were employed.

[Illustration:

FIG. 261. (S. 1–3.) These three axes are in the Museum of the
Historical Department of Iowa. They are highly polished, with sharp
edges, and the two to the right shaped somewhat like tomahawks.
Inspection of these figures will acquaint readers with the fact that
Iowa axes, in some instances, may be distinguished from those of
other sections of the country.
]

“What has been said regarding the axe illustrative of aboriginal
judgment and knowledge might be repeated for each type of artifact. In
each case we should find that the worker had particular reasons why he
selected material for a certain artifact, and that these reasons were
founded in an understanding of the mineralogical and structural
differences in rocks. If we study ornaments and ceremonial stones, we
shall see that ordinarily he selected a soft ornamental rock, especially
the banded slates, but if he chose to use igneous rocks he rarely
employed the types used for axes, but ordinarily the handsome porphyries
which made showy and attractive objects. If he wished material for
net-weights or sinkers for lines or weights for spears, he took the
easily worked and abundant sandstones and limestones, which he rejected
for other and harder usage.”

On writing Professor Harlan I. Smith of the American Museum of Natural
History, New York, regarding axes of the Columbia Valley, British
Columbia, Alaska, and the Northwest, generally, Professor Smith replied
and quoted from the data collected by the Jesup North Pacific
Expedition, part vi of vol. vi of the Memoirs.

[Illustration:

FIG. 262. (S. 1–1.)
]

Mr. Daniel Ashworth spent several years in the far Northwest, near Yale,
British Columbia. While there he made a collection of stone implements
and among them a grooved axe. Professor Smith writes:

[Illustration:

FIG. 263. (S. 1–4.) This shows two axes of Class “C,” the one to the
right being adze-like in character, although I have included it with
the axes, it being grooved. These were found near Ipswich,
Massachusetts. The specimen to the left has straight sides, a keen
edge, and is splendidly worked out. Peabody Museum, Salem.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 263. _A._ (S. 1–5.)
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 264. (S. 2–3.) Grooved stone axe, from near Portsmouth, Ohio. W.
K. Moorehead collection, Ohio State University Museum.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 265. (S. 2–3.) Grooved stone axe, from Miami Valley, Ohio. W. K.
Moorehead collection, Ohio State University Museum.
]

“A grooved axe was purchased from an Indian at or near Yale, who showed
him how the people formerly hafted such objects in a split stick,
fastening the axe in place with withes. The poll is hemispherical; the
cutting edge has been sharpened about equally from both sides, and the
surfaces are quite convex; the edge is convex in outline, and has been
battered until it has become quite flat. The groove extends around the
sides and rear edge, and occupies about half the distance between the
middle of the specimen and the top. The ungrooved side edge of the blade
is flatter than the other, and meets the sides at a slight angle. One
side and the side edge are crossed by a pecked surface, as if a second
groove had been attempted. These two grooves, as well as the general
shape of the axe, remind one of the grooved axes found in the Southwest.
Grooved axes are rarely found in the region including Washington and the
southern interior of British Columbia, and the one just described is the
most authentic specimen from the whole area of which I have any
knowledge. There is one other known to me. It is an axe made of stone
and grooved entirely around. It is in the Museum of the Oregon
Historical Society at Portland (no. 237, list 30), and is labeled as
coming from the Cascades. It is hafted in the split end of a stick, and
held in place by thongs. It appears to have been grooved recently, and
the handle bears cuts resembling those made by a modern axe. The edge of
this specimen bears longitudinal lines similar to those found on some
skin-scrapers and on the sharp end of many of the agricultural
implements chipped from stone and found in the Middle Mississippi
Valley. They also somewhat resemble the results of the action of the
natural sand-blast such as affected many specimens in the Columbia
Valley. The material is a black or blackish-gray stone, possibly
diorite. There is a longitudinal groove pecked in one side of this
specimen. This specimen may have been taken west among the belongings of
some pioneer, or it may have been hafted from a description similar to
that given by Mr. Ashworth. The method of hafting is similar to that
employed for skin-scrapers.[6] The only other grooved axe from the
Pacific Coast of America which has come to my attention is from Central
California.[7] Dr. J. W. Hudson informs me that several grooved axes
have been found in northeastern California, but that they are supposed
to have been brought there in prehistoric times from farther east.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 266. (S. 1–2.) An interesting, double-bladed axe, from Missouri.
One may observe that the ridges are prominent. Dr. H. M. Whelpley’s
collection.
]

Mr. Charles E. Brown, who contributed so much to the Stone Age, writes
several pages on the axes of his region. While he speaks for Wisconsin,
much of his description will apply to Michigan, central and eastern
Minnesota types:—

“Of grooved stone axes, the following classes occur.

“1. Notched axes. Not numerous. Most are rough; a few are well made,
being ground smooth or polished.

“2. Axes completely encircled by a groove. Thousands have been found.
Especially numerous in the southern half of the state. Rough, ground, or
polished. Weight from one half pound to eighteen or more pounds.

“2a. Similar but with prominent ridges above and below the handle
groove. Poll rounded or conical. Usually very well made.

“3. Groove extending around three sides, back flattened or rounded.
Groove straight or diagonal. Thousands have been found. Most numerous in
the southern half of the state.

“3a. Similar but with prominent ridges above and below the handle
groove, or only below. Back flat, rounded or concave. Poll rounded or
conical. Usually well made and ground or polished. Not as numerous as
No. 3.

“3b. Similar to No. 3 but with very long blade. Known as _long-bitted_
(adze-form) _axes_. Poll rounded or conical, groove straight or
diagonal, back rounded, flat or concave, cutting edge narrow. Some have
prominent projecting ridges above and below, or only below the handle
groove. Length, nine to twelve or more inches.

“These axes are peculiar to Wisconsin, but are of rare occurrence even
here. They occur in the Lake Michigan shore tiers of counties. All are
very well made and are ground smooth or polished. They resemble somewhat
the long-bitted axes of Arizona and New Mexico. Some specimens have the
poll ornamented with transverse, spiral, or concentric flutings. Some
have the blade ornamented on one or both sides with longitudinal
flutings.

“3c. Oval axes. Groove does not extend quite to the back. Back rounded.
A few have prominent grooves above and below the handle groove. Rare.
Most are well made and ground or polished.

[Illustration:

FIG. 267. (S. 2–5.) All axes, in company with other implements, pass
through the usual stages of manufacture, and we may assume that the
oval pebble is first grooved at the top and pecked on the edge, as
in this Figure. The above specimen was found five feet deep in a
sand-bank on the Merrimack River at Lawrence, Massachusetts.
Phillips Academy collection. Because it was buried at such a depth
in fine, yellow sand, the original markings, or pits, caused by the
hand-hammers, appear in all their freshness. Were this specimen
brought into my office and offered for sale, I would conclude that
it had been made recently and that some one was endeavoring to
deceive me. But it was found under conditions which preclude the
possibility of recent origin.
]

“4. Double-grooved axes. With two grooves. Rare. Similar to
double-grooved axes found in other states.

“5. Centrally grooved axes. Groove at or near the middle of the
implement, and completely encircling it. Rare.

“6. Double-bitted axes. Centrally grooved. Both extremities have a
cutting edge. Of rare occurrence.

“7. Fluted axes. (See _Wisconsin Archeologist_, vol. I, no. I.) The
polls or blades are ornamented with shallow grooves or ridges. Such
ornamentation is not confined to any single class of Wisconsin axes.
They occur on both roughly made, and smooth or polished axes. These axes
are peculiar to Wisconsin. About two hundred and fifty specimens have
been found. The finest series of examples are in the Logan Museum,
Beloit; the State Historical Museum, Madison; the Milwaukee Public
Museum, and the H. P. Hamilton Collection at Two Rivers. No two
specimens are exactly alike in their ornamentation.

[Illustration:

FIG. 268. (S. 1–1.) This is an axe made from a large pitted
hammer-stone. Collection of G. F. Powers, Wilmington, Illinois. The
edge is not very sharp. The figure explains itself,—that the
aborigine desired to make an axe out of his hammer-stone, and did
so. Previously I never saw a specimen like this one.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 269. (S. 1–3.) Presents two Connecticut axes from the collection
of Benton Holcomb, Simsbury. These, being found near together, of
the same form and material, emphasize what I have frequently stated
in this book, that the implements of one section may be
differentiated from those of another. The unfinished bird-stone in
the centre will be described in its proper place.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 270. (S. 1–3.) In the axe-adze class are presented three
beautiful specimens from the collection of A. E. Marks. The one to
the left is double-grooved. The upper specimen has a short blade,
the poll of the axe being as long as the blade. All of these
specimens are worn smooth by contact with the handles and wrappings.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 271. (S. 5–12.) J. H. Richardson collection. Found on
Neutaconkanut Hill, Johnston, Rhode Island.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 272. (S. 1–2.) Collection of W. H. Foster, Andover,
Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 273. (S. 1–1.) The smallest axe in the United States. H. K.
Deisher collection, Kutztown, Pennsylvania. For what purpose this
toy was made, I do not know. It was found near East St. Louis,
Illinois, some years ago.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 274. (S. 1–3.) Rev. James Savage collection. Material: argillite.
Lenawee County, Michigan.
]

“8. Ridged axes. Prominent longitudinal ridge in the centre on both
sides of the blade. Very well made and smooth or polished. Very rare.
Several specimens are known. Probably peculiar to Wisconsin.”

_Other Classes_

“Barbed axes. Occur in Michigan. None have been found in Wisconsin.
Rough, or smooth, or highly polished. (See Fig. 275 for illustration of
specimens in Father James Savage’s collection.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 275. (S. 1–3.) Rev. James Savage’s collection. Barbed axes. Just
why such a form was made, no one is able to determine. These must
remain as mysterious. To the left, argillite, Jackson County,
Michigan; to the right, limestone, Washtenaw County, Michigan.
]

“Indented axes. Occur in central and northern Illinois. They have a
central circular depression on one side of the blade. Several examples
are known. All are well made, smooth or polished.

“Groove extending over poll and into the handle groove. Occur in
Missouri. Rare. Several examples known. Well made, small size, smooth or
polished.”

Down in the Cliff-Dweller country—and by this I mean the region drained
by the Colorado and its tributaries—are discovered axes different from
those found elsewhere in the United States. There are two in Fig. 262
from the collection of Luther A. Norland, La Jara, Colorado. I have
shown these full size. They are made of agate-like stone, from which the
Cliff-Dwellers worked some of their best axes, although such rocks are
extremely hard. These specimens lashed in short handles would make
formidable weapons, and the material is so hard that wood could be cut
as easily, almost, as with an iron axe.

[Illustration:

FIG. 276. (S. 1–4.) Fluted stone axe types. Drawn by Charles E. Brown.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 277. (S. 1–4.) Collection of Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin. All
these fluted axes were found in Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 278. (S. nearly 1–1.) Fluted axe. Joseph Ringeisen collection,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Found on a farm at the southwest end of Wind
Lake, Racine County, Wisconsin.
]

No large axes are found in the Cliff-Dweller country and this type does
not occur in the Pueblo country lying in the Salt River and Gila
valleys, where axes similar to the central one shown in the top row,
Fig. 254, are common. That axe is typical of the adobe ruins of the
Salado and Gila valleys.

The two axes in Fig. 262 were found near each other on Agua Caliente, a
tributary of the La Jara River. The one to the left is jadeite, in two
shades of green, flecked with reddish brown. It shows three notches and
two grooves. The one to the right is actinolite, the color is waxy burnt
umber, flecked on the reverse side with green and white.

In Iowa there was an axe discovered, some years ago, which weighed
thirty-two pounds. This is shown in Fig. 263 _A_, one fifth size. It is
in possession of the Historical Department of Iowa and one of the most
remarkable specimens in the United States. I am indebted to Messrs.
Aldrich and Van Hyning for a cast of this axe. The material is hard gray
granite. It was beautifully worked and polished, and said to be the
largest axe in America.

FLUTED STONE AXES

Of effigy mounds, native copper implements, and fluted stone axes the
State of Wisconsin may be said to possess a monopoly. These are features
peculiar to her interesting archæology. The following information
concerning the fluted axes is furnished by Mr. Charles E. Brown, chief
of the State Historical Museum of Wisconsin, who has personally examined
a large number of specimens:

[Illustration:

FIG. 279. (S. nearly 1–1.) Fluted axe. Edge view of Fig. 278. Joseph
Ringeisen collection, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 280. (S. a trifle over 1–2.) Double-grooved axe to the left. Two
peculiar axes at the right. Wisconsin types.
]

“The so-called fluted or ornamented stone axes are distinguished from
those of all other sections of the United States by the shallow or well
defined ornamental grooves which have been pecked or ground into the
surfaces of their blades and polls. In the accompanying plates figures
of a number of examples of these curious and interesting axes are shown.
Several distinct styles of ornamentation are illustrated. Such
ornamentation is not confined to any special form or forms of Wisconsin
axes. Neither is it confined to only well made or finely finished axes.
Many of the specimens which have received decorative treatment of this
nature are themselves but rudely fashioned, or of very ordinary form;
some have received rough use at the hands of their aboriginal owners, as
is evidenced by their fractured polls and blades. A small number are
gracefully shaped axes, with surfaces ground smooth or highly polished.
These may be truthfully said to represent the highest attainment of the
ancient axe-maker’s art. The greater number of these axes have the
surface of the blade ornamented with from one to five or more parallel
longitudinal grooves which extend from just below the handle groove to
within a short distance of the cutting edge. The grooves are separated
from one another by plane surfaces, or well-marked ridges.

[Illustration:

FIG. 281. (S. 1–2.) Fluted axe. R. Kuehne’s collection, Sheboygan,
Wisconsin. A remarkable specimen.
]

“A few specimens have transverse or diagonal grooves (see Fig. 276).
Occasionally but one surface of the blade is fluted, the other being
devoid of ornamentation. In many instances there is a difference in
either the number of the grooves, or in the manner of the arrangement of
the grooves on the two faces of the blade. Thus the grooves on one side
may be longitudinal and on the other side transverse. One well-known
specimen has the grooves arranged in the form of a chevron (see no. 1,
Fig. 276) and several have circular figures pecked into the surfaces of
their blades. The specimen in the lower right-hand corner of Fig. 277 is
unique in having both longitudinal and transverse grooves on one face of
its blade.

[Illustration:

FIG. 282. (S. 1–2.) C. A. Perkins’s collection, Wakefield,
Massachusetts. A fine example of the double-grooved axe.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 283. (S. 1–1.) Phillips Academy collection. Two small objects in
celt-axe class and a beautiful double-edged axe from a ruin near
Phoenix, Arizona.
]

“A small number of axes have both ornamented blades and polls. In some
specimens the poll only is ornamented. The method of its ornamentation
may consist of a number of grooves radiating from the crown downwards
toward the handle groove, as seen in no. 4, Fig. 276, or of a spiral
groove, or a circle, or number of concentric circles, as are shown in
the other types illustrated. There are other styles of treatment.

“The finest examples of the fluted stone axes are undoubtedly those of
the long-bitted form (see Figs. 277, 281). One of these has eighteen
longitudinal grooves cut into the two faces and front of its blade. In
their style and finish these graceful, slender axes are unsurpassed. A
small number of fluted celts and fluted grooved hammers have also been
found. Several of these are in the State Museum.

“We now have record of the recovery of about two hundred and fifty
fluted stone axes and other implements in Wisconsin, a considerable
increase since 1901 when the existence of only slightly over one hundred
was known. Almost all come from the southern half of the state and the
greater number from eastern Wisconsin. None are known to have been
secured from mounds or graves.

“Fine series of these axes are now to be seen in the collections of the
Logan Museum, at Beloit, in the Milwaukee Public Museum, and in the
State Historical Museum at Madison. Several private collectors also
possess fine examples. There are a few specimens from Wisconsin in
Eastern museums.

“Outside the State of Wisconsin only a few fluted implements have been
found. Mr. Harlan I. Smith has described a fluted celt from the Saginaw
Valley in Michigan, and Dr. David Boyle another from Ontario. We should
expect to find a few stray examples in the adjoining states of Illinois,
Iowa, and Minnesota, but none have yet been reported.

“The significance of the fluted ornamentation of these axes is unknown.”

CONCLUSIONS AS TO CELTS, ADZES, GOUGES AND AXES

The distribution of axes in the United States is not equal to that of
chipped implements. Axes occur in certain sections of the country where
other types of prehistoric objects are wanting, are most numerous where
the problematical forms occur frequently, and are more or less
individualistic, and one can frequently differentiate the Eastern from
the Southern or the Northern from the Western type. There are
practically no stone axes in Florida, and few along the seaboard from
Florida to Texas. Almost none are found in Texas, and northward from
Texas until southern Iowa is reached axes are almost wanting. On the
Great Plains of Kansas and Nebraska, where chipped implements are to be
found, axes are rare. In the cave region of the Ozarks, which, by the
way, is an anomaly in archæology, there are no stone axes, only two
having been found in the entire region; whereas, according to
percentages elsewhere, there should be several hundred, if not nearly
one thousand. On some village-sites in this country numbers of axes have
been found; whereas, on other village-sites there are no axes. This is
significant, and along with other similar facts of interest should be
noted.

In addition to the places already cited where axes are rare, it is
strange that a dearth of them exists on the head waters of the Columbia,
Missouri, and Colorado. They are very rare on the Pacific Coast, and
axes from California, Oregon, and Washington should be considered as
strays.

[Illustration:

FIG. 284. (S. 2–3.) H. M. Braun’s collection.
]

Thus our distribution of axes narrows to the whole Mississippi Valley,
the Delaware and Susquehanna, the eastern South, New England, eastern
and central Canada, and the Cliff-Dweller country. We have already seen
where adzes and gouges occur. The chisel-like form of celt is limited to
the central Mississippi Valley and the Ohio Valley, with a few in the
Hudson, Susquehanna, and St. Lawrence regions.

Many of these types are more or less alike, and yet one may suggest that
they represent different tribes if not different cultures.

A statement was made that axes occur most numerously where the
problematical forms are to be found. This statement is true and
significant.

Again, axes do not occur where there is an abundance of material
suitable for the making of axes, such as in the Ozarks, California, and
throughout the Rocky Mountains. I have commented elsewhere on the lack
of axes in graves and mounds, although they are frequently found in
cliff-houses. But this does not necessarily mean that the Cliff-Dwellers
place them with their dead. They are found in cliff-houses along with
other objects for the simple reason that the Cliff-Dwellers lived in
these places.

[Illustration:

FIG. 285. (S. 1–2.) B. H. Young’s collection. To the left is an
engraved axe. There is a skull worked in relief on one side of the
poll. On the reverse, arm and leg bones seem to be indicated. The
other specimen is a fine stone tomahawk. Both of granite; locality,
the Cumberland Valley.
]

It would be possible for one to devote an entire volume to axes, their
forms, material of which they are made, and uses. It seems to me that
when we scrutinize axes with that detail and care observed by botanists,
biologists, and other scientists in their studies of various forms in
life, that we shall be able to solve some of the mysteries regarding the
purposes of the more highly specialized forms. There is a great deal to
be learned, as I have previously remarked, by such study.

[Illustration:

FIG. 286. (S. 1–3.) At either side are slate tomahawks from Trigg
County, Kentucky; one of which was found in a grave at the mouth of
Little River. The central object was found in Wayne County, near the
Cumberland River. It is remarkable as having three distinct grooves.
It is made of slate and was found in a mound. B. H. Young’s
collection.
]

I do not wish to weary readers with these technical remarks, but in real
archæology they are of the greatest importance. It is only by tedious
comparisons that we shall arrive at a true understanding of stone-age
times. We must cast aside the present, and our mental attitude must be
in sympathy with stone-age man. The student who hastily passes over
exhibits of axes or celts or flint implements as “more or less alike”
will never understand real American archæology, any more than the
student in Latin would become proficient were he to conclude that two
words were derived from the same root because they happen to look
somewhat alike in his text-book.

[Illustration:

FIG. 287. (S. 2–5.) Ceremonial axe from northeastern Kentucky.
Material: hard reddish-brown sandstone. Length, 10 inches. B. H.
Young’s collection.
]

It must be observed that in many axes the groove appears to be the
essential and characteristic thing, whereas it is not. A groove may be
made by elevating, or bringing into prominence the ridges. Examine the
numerous axes illustrated in this chapter, or inspect the axes in some
large museum, as evidence of the statement. The groove, in many, will be
found to be no deeper than the surface of the axe, yet because the
ridges are worked into high relief, it appears to be deeper than it is.

[Illustration:

FIG. 288. (S. about 3–5.) This figure is from “Certain Aboriginal
Remains, Black Warrior River, etc.,” and was loaned by Mr. Moore.
Length, 11.6 inches. Monolithic hatchet from Moundville, Alabama.
]

Fig. 288 is a beautiful stone tomahawk, both handle and base being of
stone cut from a solid piece. This is justly considered one of the
rarest stone artifacts in the United States. It is shown about three
fifths size. Mr. Clarence B. Moore says of it:—

“Some years ago, a colored man, ploughing near one of the larger mounds
at Moundville, found a superb hatchet and handle carved from a solid
mass, probably amphibolite, and highly polished. This hatchet was
procured by Mr. C. S. Prince, from whom it was obtained by the Academy
of Natural Sciences.

“The hatchet, 11.6 inches in length, with a neatly made ring at the end
of the handle (not clearly shown in the reproduction), resembles, to a
certain extent, the one found by Dr. Joseph Jones, near Nashville,
Tennessee, and described and figured by him. C. C. Jones describes and
figures this same hatchet, and speaks of the finding of another exactly
similar in South Carolina.

“Thruston also describes and illustrates the Jones hatchet, and refers
to the South Carolina specimen, and to still another, somewhat ruder in
form, as coming from Arkansas.

“It is interesting in this connection to note the presence of ‘celts’
with stone handles in Santo Domingo, though these hatchets are much
inferior to the specimen from Moundville.

“The Monolithic hatchet from Moundville seems to be much more beautiful
than the one discovered by Doctor Jones, for it leaves nothing to be
desired as to finish, and the graceful backward curve of the part of the
handle above the blade seems more artistic than the form of the
corresponding portion of the Jones hatchet, which is straight.”

CHAPTER XVIII
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

THE GORGET AND ORNAMENTS AS SEEN BY EARLY EXPLORERS

On pages 24–26 will be found the Nomenclature Committee’s classification
of these, which it is not necessary to repeat here. While I follow that
grouping, yet I expand it somewhat. I do not begin with the spade-shaped
form, but with the oval, whether pendant or ornament.

[Illustration:

FIG. 289. (S. 1–1.) Perforated pebbles from near Menard mound,
Arkansas County, Arkansas. The simplest form of ornament. Collection
of C. B. Moore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 290. (S. 1–1.) An object of jade, which was found on a
village-site, on the banks of the Miami River, Miami County, Ohio.
It is in the collection of J. A. Rayner.
]

Fig. 292, showing two hundred and twenty-one forms in this class, is
followed by a list of figures illustrating each type. It was not
required, therefore, that figures be appended to the Committee’s
list—these outlines being sufficiently close to that arrangement to
stand in its stead.

If one will reflect on the beginnings of human culture, it may seem to
one that the earliest man picked up a flat bit of bright stone without
irregular edges—perhaps it was oval—and drilled a little hole in the
top, and wore it about his neck as an ornament. It is not to be supposed
that man began with the specialized forms, or a ridged ornament, which
must have been of later development. Whether by later, one means a few
generations or a thousand years, is immaterial, for, as we have observed
in other places in this book, some tribes progressed rapidly, while
others did not. Among the latter, the period of development in
ornamental stones would be practically nil, for there are no
problematical forms among such Indians as the Seris, whom McGee found in
the stone age as late as 1901.[8]

[Illustration:

FIG. 291. (S. 1–2.) Peabody Museum, Harvard University, collection.
Further development of the single-perforation stone ornament. The
circular disc is seldom found, and was probably an ear-ring.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 292
]

Now, while such Indians as the Seris have not progressed, we must not
imagine that the rate of progress among other tribes was always very
low. It may have been rapid or it may have been retarded; no man can
affirm with reference to this. But it is to be supposed that the
progress was considerable, for the Indian is superior to most other
tribes of barbarians.

[Illustration:

FIG. 293. (S. varying.) Andover collection. Three ovate pendants
drilled at either end. The one to the right is decorated with eight
incised lines on the right end, and seven at the left. The specimen
to the left is full size, the centre one, a pendant of veined
quartz, is two thirds size, while the smaller one is one third size.
]

It is not necessary to point out that the Indian brain is finer than the
Australian or African brain. The Indian is bright, he is alert, he is
quick to avail himself of natural advantages. I have always been of the
opinion that, had the Indian discovered the properties of iron, and
constructed more permanent dwellings, he would have developed a high
culture peculiarly his own, on this continent.

[Illustration:

FIG. 294. (S. 1–1.) Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society
collection. An ornament made of strips of ocean shell about one inch
wide at the centre and gradually tapering to about three fourths of
an inch at the end. Ornaments of this kind varied in length from six
inches to four inches. The ends were cut square, into which a small
hole was bored, about the centre of the ornament, to a depth of one
fourth of an inch. A second hole was bored from the concave side to
connect with the first hole, thus forming a means of attachment that
could not be seen from the convex side. The strips were cut from the
body of the shell and conform to the general curve of the shell.
]

We may imagine that the first aborigine to discover the possibilities of
the stone ornament, selected an unusually soft claystone, punched a hole
through it with a thorn, and the material being very soft, the rim
between the perforation and the upper part gave way and the stone was
lost. Meantime, other natives, seeing and admiring this new ornament,
followed his example. Presently, it was ascertained that slate and
sandstone, while harder to drill, retained their shape and were more
serviceable than softer clay-stones. Somebody discovered that it was
well to make two perforations in the oval stone. Again, that by grinding
the edge of the stone one could change the form, and thus the objects
shown in Fig. 291 came into use. A stone of near the desired shape was
worked accordingly, and flat discs remained as more or less circular or
rectangular ornaments. Thus, slate and shale, rectangular in the natural
state, were made into rectangular or square ornaments and tablets.

[Illustration:

FIG. 295. (S. about 1–2.) Five specimens, two of which are ovate, two
pointed, and the upper one to the left is spade-shaped. But the
upper one was broken and afterwards ground down, so that its present
form is no indication that the original form is spade-shaped.
Collection of Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Mass.
]

On the folder herewith presented as Fig. 292, I have drawn all the forms
of polished stones of the problematical and ornamental class. That is,
all of them that have been brought to my attention. There will be few
specimens illustrated in this section that are not included in the
figure mentioned. My aim in presenting so many of these is to include
all the types. Some odd-shaped problematical forms may be considered as
the result of individual fancy on the part of prehistoric man, and not
true types.

The outlines shown in Fig. 292 are illustrated, further on in the
chapter, by specimens either full size, half-size, or less. To the left
are the letters indicating the various rows, while the numbers refer to
type specimens. Readers should bear in mind that the numbers represent
illustrations and not pages.

_Left side of diagram_ _Right side of diagram_
A. Two specimens in 305. A. 311.
B. 298, 296. B. 296.
C. 295, 381. C. 381.
D. 371, 373. D. 376.
E. 299, 300. E. 301, lower specimen.
F. 301, several in 348. F. 330, central specimen.
G. 338, lower specimen 355. G. 338, lower specimen.
H. 305, 308. H. 344, specimens 1 and 3.
I. 355, 357–8. I. 351, lower specimen (centre).
J. 353. J. 353, right specimen.
K. 332, nos. 7 and 9 of 344. K. 344, no. 10.
L. 314, top row at the right; L. 344, specimens 1 and 3.
349, bottom specimen to left.
M. 386. M. 362.
N. 315. N. 366.
O. 386. O. 363.

These two hundred and twenty-one outlines are of different objects in
various museum collections, not quite one third being on exhibition in
Andover and the others in the Peabody Museum, Harvard University; Ohio
State Archæological and Historical Society, Columbus; the Field Museum,
Chicago; Smithsonian at Washington; the Dominion Museum at Toronto; the
Art Museum at Cincinnati, etc. I have omitted the locality of these, but
reference to the illustrations presented in this chapter of specimens
from all over the country, will give one an idea of the range.

Each row is lettered. At the top, A, are the simple forms, pecked and
ground and perhaps polished, but not perforated. A begins with the oval
and ends in the tablet form with four concave sides. B also begins with
the oval, is perforated, and ends in the pendant form. Under the 10th
specimen, counting from the left end of row B, I have drawn a small
arrow indicating that this form may be traced through another series.
This is lettered row C. The sixth specimen, counting from the right
towards the left in row B, is a spade-shaped gorget. This may have
suggested the true spade form. I have drawn an arrow from this specimen
and inserted a number of spud-shaped objects which are lettered D.

Row E begins with the simple oval, again, but is doubly perforated. This
row ends in the flat tablet, concave sides with two perforations on
either side of the centre. The seventh specimen, counting from right to
left in this row, has underneath it two arrows, which indicate two other
series. The first, row F, ending in the ridged form; second, row H,
exhibiting progression in the concavity in the sides until it terminates
in the double crescent, or problematical form with curved arms. Opposite
the short series F is another series under the same letter, beginning
with the second specimen from right to left in row E. This form of
tablet may be carried through the series to a highly specialized form
with angular depressions on either side of the centre.

[Illustration:

FIG. 296. (S. 1–2.) The purpose of these spade-shaped forms is not
clear. Probably they are developments of the simple, straight-side
ornament. Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 297. (S. 1–1.) This long, rectangular slate ornament becoming
broken was ground down and reperforated and used for suspension.
This specimen was originally something like six inches in length and
was perforated about two inches from either end. Aside from the
perforations it was worn or tied at right angles to the position in
which it would hang in its present form. The two perforations would
cause it to hang downwards. Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 298. (S. 1–2.) Pendants and shield forms (top). In the centre is
a small pendant perforated for suspension. The three specimens at
the bottom of the figure represent the squared pendant and oval
pendant. The latter has been grooved for suspension. It was probably
a different form originally, judging from the perforations, and was
later changed to the pendant form. Andover collection.
]

All the specimens thus far in the plate, except the spud-shaped form and
the ridged objects, are flat gorgets and pendants which the Committee
classify under the general term “laminae”; that is those having flat
surfaces, or surfaces nearly flat. In row G, to the left, is arranged
the development of yet another form with wings. The first specimen is
the pick-shaped object of slate or granite, drilled through. This may
gradually expand or change its form, but usually the centre is wide and
the wings not very prominent.

[Illustration:

FIG. 299. (S. 1–1 to 1–2.) Andover collection. The ordinary flat
tablet with concave sides and rounded ends. I have found several of
these on the chests and arms of skeletons. The lower specimen
presents a peculiarity noted in a number of similar objects in the
Peabody Museum, Cambridge. There is a polished groove between the
two perforations. There are four or five specimens, all from the
same locality in Maine, on exhibition in the Peabody Museum which
present this peculiarity. The groove is worn smooth and apparently
the polish is the result of the rubbing back and forth of the thongs
with which this specimen was fastened. To what it was fastened I am
unable to state. The upper specimen exhibits three perforations.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 300. (S. 1–5.) This figure illustrates twenty-nine slate pendants
and tablets of several types ranging from the oval to the ridged
form. These are from Indiana and Ohio and are all beautiful
specimens, well made. The one at the bottom, in the centre, is
rather an unusual form. Collection of Albert L. Addis, Albion,
Indiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 301. (S. 2–5.) Denotes the passing of the oval ornament into the
rectangular class and the tablet form. The long one to the left is
rather unusual. Sometimes these long ornaments have concave sides,
or may be straight pendants of unusual size. Collection of C. L.
Baatz, Massillon, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 302. (S. 1–1.) A long pointed red sandstone ornament with notches
(presumably records) on either edge and originally perforated near
each end. Becoming broken, it was perforated on either side at the
top either for repair or for suspension. Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 303. (S. 1–1.) A splendid illustration of the ovate form, pointed
at either end, highly polished. Such a specimen as this must have
been very highly prized by ancient man. Collection of Dudley A.
Martin, Duboistown, Pennsylvania.
]

In row I we begin with the oval pebble, not the flat pebble of the
gorget class. This specimen is practically the same as the first in row
G, with this difference that it is placed horizontally instead of
vertically. But after the first two forms, the type varies, being long
or short, but always with rounded ends until it terminates in the
beautiful crescents shown in the centre of the page. Readers are
referred to various illustrations throughout this chapter on
problematical forms which show specimens of this type nearly full size.

[Illustration:

FIG. 304. (S. 1–1.) An unusual form of ornament. Small perforation at
the top, grooves or indentations, forming a neck. Large perforations
below, which are worn smooth. A few such ornaments have been found
in this country, but they are exceedingly rare. Material, dark red
jasper. Collection of F. B. Valentine, Ridgeley, West Virginia.
]

At the right, in row I, are the slightly curved crescents or pick-like
forms. More pronounced curves in these, as shown in row J, enable one to
make a series ending in the L-shaped forms. In row K, the oval slate
pebble is drilled through its long diameter, or through the short
diameter, according to the fancy of the native, and the grain or strata
of the stone. Some of the specimens exhibit slightly flaring sides and
these become more pronounced until the “butterfly” form of problematical
stones is apparent. The eighth specimen from the left toward the right
in row K indicates how this stone may take another form. Row M to the
left indicates small pendants, probably used for nose, rings, and
ear-rings. These are not very common. M, to the right, is the series
beginning with two forms of ridged unperforated gorgets which are
coffin-shaped, and ending in the ridged gorget, opposite which (to the
right) are drawn two arrows. On the right of the plate, in row N, is the
ridged gorget terminating in the boat-shaped object; and below, the
ridged form ending in two objects having elevated, horn-like
protuberances in the centre. Row O, to the left, is the ordinary oval,
not flat but thick and round, which may be slightly grooved at one end.
This series progresses through forms with wide shoulders and narrow
necks and long, pointed bodies. Of the purpose of these we possess no
knowledge. Numbers of them are found in the United States; but none of
the specimens shown at the right in row O (left side of sheet) have to
my knowledge been found in mounds or graves.

[Illustration:

FIG. 305. (S. 1–5.) A good series of the flat, rectangular gorgets
(also a few ovate ones) of all kinds. The three central objects and
the lower central one do not belong in this classification. Students
should examine all these twenty-seven objects carefully. Materials:
slate, granite, sandstone, diorite. Collection of J. A. Rayner,
Piqua, Ohio.
]

The materials out of which these two hundred and twenty-one specimens
are made are various shales, granite, sandstone, banded slate, mica
schist, and porphyry.

The arranging of all these types is not arbitrary. Another observer
might group them in a different manner. I do not maintain that they
should be grouped this way. But we have so many of them in our American
museums that an attempt at grouping and classifying them should be made.

About twelve years ago, just before Mr. Peabody endowed the Department
of Archæology at Phillips Academy, I began the study of the
problematical or unknown forms. I found that these objects were
mentioned more or less briefly in nearly a hundred reports, books, and
scientific papers. In the “Handbook of American Indians,” they are
discussed under various heads and small illustrations are presented.

[Illustration:

FIG. 306. (S. 1–2.) The straight bar-pendant; then one with slightly
concave sides. At the top, a broken rectangular form with concave
sides. Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 307. The upper ones, full size. The two to the left, 1–3 size.
The two to the right, 3–5 size. Andover collection. These broken and
re-worked forms are described elsewhere in this chapter.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 308. (S. 4–5.) Found in a mound at Moundville, Alabama, on the
Black Warrior River, by Clarence B. Moore. Material: dark mica
schist. There are tablets found in the South and Southwest which are
different from the forms occurring in the Ohio Valley. This tablet
lay near a skeleton. Mr. Moore states that it was covered with
decayed wood and that there were traces of pigment. Tablets somewhat
similar to this are found in the Pueblo ruins in southern Arizona.
But in these the centre is depressed, and it appears as if they were
used as palettes on which was placed paint, according to the theory
of Frank Hamilton Gushing. Such tablets do not properly belong in a
class of objects for suspension, but I have included two or three of
them here.
]

In presenting deductions in this volume on problematical forms I shall
not be so presumptuous as to claim to have arrived at a solution of the
origin and uses of this class of objects. It is quite certain that a
great deal that I have to say will be improved upon by archæologists of
a generation hence. But I want to offer some suggestions as to this
strange class of implements. Since nobody appears fully to understand
them, there can be no harm in pointing out certain features common to
this or that type of problematical forms. The deductions are based on a
study of these objects and the conditions under which they are found,
and I beg the critical archæologist, who may not concur in my
deductions, to offer suggestions and determinations of his own as to
their classification and use.

[Illustration:

FIG. 309. (S. 1–1.) Material: dark, hard slate. A typical perforated
ornament on which some marks or lines have been cut. Collection of
Dauphin County Historical Society, Pennsylvania.
]

Before placing these objects into their various classes, we should
consider the essential points at issue. These objects are called
problematical forms, or ceremonials, or charms, or banner-stones, or any
one of fifty other names. Such names both indicate ignorance of the
purpose prehistoric man had in mind, and also emphasize the need of a
complete archæological nomenclature which will enable us to do away with
such unscientific and amateurish terms. The difficulty in the way of
superseding these is, that after thirty or more years of use some of
these terms have become fixed. The general designation—problematical
forms—was first applied to them by Professor W. H. Holmes.

_First_, most of them are made of unusual materials; that is, the
ancient Indian selected a bright, clear stone, a stone with well-defined
bands, or a fine-grained, dark brown sandstone, or a bright granite. He
did not use ordinary limestone, and he employed gray slate or black
slate without bands when he could obtain nothing else. He preferred
brighter colors. The very material and its treatment indicate that these
objects in their purpose stand apart from the ordinary run of common
artifacts.

_Second_, he brought these objects to a state of high finish, all of
which involved a deal of labor.

[Illustration:

FIG. 310. (S. 1–1.) Carved animal figures on both sides of a flat
piece of catlinite. North Dakota. Collection of Henry Montgomery,
Toronto, Canada.
]

_Third_, he was very particular how he made them, and I shall show
pictures illustrating the progress of the double-winged problematical
form from the block of slate to the chipped specimen.

_Fourth_, he cast away broken axes or celts, and we seldom find a broken
spear that is re-chipped, unless for use as a scraper. But it is
significant that he made use of at least half of the broken
problematical forms. This may seem trivial, but it is important; for we
must inquire into every detail with reference to these objects because
it is only by such study that we shall learn anything about them.

_Fifth_, he made his perforations at right angles to the grain or bands
of the stone, which should be noted. The exceptions are rare. If he
drilled with the grain, the stone would chip, and before he finished the
object, it might break.

_Sixth_, he drilled the specimen before it was completed, knowing that
the drilling was a dangerous process at best. And if he did not prize
the specimen very highly, he would not have cared when he drilled it.

_Seventh_, he placed these objects with his dead. He buried them in
altars, or under other conditions which stamped them as peculiar and
valuable.

After ascertaining that slate pebbles were rare, he looked about for
material and discovered veins of slate which outcropped in certain
portions of the United States. He quarried slate even as he quarried
flint, though on a less extensive scale. He blocked out this slate after
the fashion of “turtle backs,” in order that he might conveniently
transport it and work it into desired forms at his leisure. There is a
village-site on Martin’s Creek, Pennsylvania, where numbers of these
problematical forms have been found. There are thirty or more of them in
our museum from this site alone.

[Illustration:

FIG. 311. (S. 1–1.) J. A. Rayner’s collection. Material: fine
sandstone, dark brown color. An unusual flat tablet, in that there
are four concave sides. Yet this specimen must not be considered of
the winged type. It is a flat tablet with the sides cut out into
this fanciful form. It seems to me that the intention of the workman
was to cut lines or designs upon the surfaces as he did in Figs. 309
and 312.
]

A study of the distribution and character of problematical forms
acquaints one with the significant fact that the quarried slate or shale
was worked into forms more or less specialized. The specimens from
Martin’s Creek are of the winged or crescent or expanded winged type;
and they can be recognized as from that site. The flat ornaments seem to
have been manufactured out of ordinary water-worn fragments, or thin
slabs of shale.

[Illustration:

FIG. 312. (S. 1–1.) Brown fine-grained sandstone. J. A. Rayner’s
collection, Piqua, Ohio. Found in a mound one half mile north of
Piqua. The original was sent me for examination. It bears a close
resemblance to the “Cincinnati tablet” in treatment and form. The
designs are not hieroglyphic, but are of that peculiar serpentine
character noted on so many of the engraved shells, pottery, etc.
Only half of it was found, and as the break appears to be old, the
specimen is of unquestioned genuineness.
]

Up to the present, with few exceptions, I have considered the
manufacture and use of these objects in prehistoric times. Now, I wish
to present a number of pages with reference to the ornaments in use
among Indians between the years 1600 and 1800.

I said in the introduction of “The Stone Age” that wherever I found a
valuable paper dealing with certain subjects along the lines followed in
this book, such paper would in whole, or in part, be quoted.

[Illustration:

FIG. 313. (S. 1–2.) Engraved tablets of fine sandstone. Collection of
J. A. Rayner, Piqua, Ohio. These may or may not be genuine. At any
rate, they are two very interesting tablets, but they have to me a
suggestion of the school slate, as if the person who made them was
familiar with our modern slates. However, I do not wish to do the
specimens an injustice, although they bear written characters, and
of course these are always viewed with suspicion, since so few have
been found in this country. Whether the tablets are the work of
prehistoric man, I leave for others to decide. Mr. Rayner, who owns
these tablets, states that they were both found in a mound near
Piqua, Ohio. He sent me at the time a blue-print picture of the
mound and gave a complete account of the exploration.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 314. (S. 1–4.) Gorgets and problematical forms from the
collection of W. A. Holmes, Chicago, Illinois. The tube to the left
in the lower row is somewhat longer than the average specimen. The
one to the right, lower row, being grooved and perforated at one
end, is quite rare. The double-pointed object in the centre has its
counterpart in the Andover collection, and at Washington and
elsewhere.
]

Professor Lucien Carr, for many years librarian at Harvard University,
published a number of important papers. In 1897, the American
Antiquarian Society printed one of Professor Carr’s memoirs entitled,
“Dress and Ornaments of Certain American Indians.” This paper, and
others along similar lines, brings within convenient compass the
essential things said by early travelers concerning our natives. As a
librarian—for Mr. Carr, although a historian, was not an archæologist—he
dealt with the early historic period. His paper is, therefore, of
peculiar value in connection with our study of ornaments, problematical
forms, etc. It must be remembered that there is little in the literature
of early America as to the use of stone in problematical form. Since
Professor Carr, who examined the material thoroughly, found so few
references, his paper is in support of my contention that the early
historians and travelers among Indians found few, if any, of the
problematical forms in use. On the contrary there were great quantities
of ornamental objects in evidence, and these are mentioned by the eighty
writers quoted by Professor Carr in his footnotes:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 315. (S. 1–3.) Unfinished objects, ridged, with expanded sides.
This form occurs both in the flat tablet and in the true ridged
type. Material: slate and shale. Collection of B. Beasley,
Montgomery, Alabama.
]

“Of the use of labrets and of the custom among the men of piercing the
nipples and inserting a reed or cane in the hole, I do not propose to
speak, as the evidence on the point is not altogether satisfactory.
Cabeza de Vaca,[9] it is true, asserts that both customs existed among
the Indians of Florida; and Adair[10] and Father Paul Ragueneau[11]
speak of piercing the lip, but in such an indefinite manner that it does
not carry much weight. At all events their statements are not
corroborated, as they would have been if the custom had been general,
and hence I do not insist upon their acceptance.

[Illustration:

FIG. 316. (S. 1–2.) Face and rear of the gorget with expanded sides.
The face is flat, the reverse is convex. These are usually
perforated from the face downward, the holes being small on the
reverse. They were not drilled with a reed or hollow drill, as the
holes are cone-shaped. This type and the flat, tablet-like form
occur more in the mounds than other forms, and seem to have been
favorite ornaments among mound-building tribes. Phillips Academy
collection.
]

“But whilst the existence among our Indians of these two methods of
bodily mutilation, or, if the term be preferred, of ornamentation, may
well be doubted, the same cannot be said of the customs of piercing the
nose and ears. These were widespread, and were usually common to all the
members of the tribe, women as well as men; though there were tribes,
like the Iroquois, in which the women did not pierce the nose, and ‘it
was only among certain others, that they pierced the ears.’[12] Although
evidently intended for ornamental purposes, yet there were people among
whom the custom had something of a religious significance, resembling in
this respect the practice of infant baptism among ourselves. Thus, for
example, we are told by Perrot[13] that the operation was performed when
the child was five or six months old by a medicine-man (‘jongleur’), who
made an invocation to the sun, or some chosen spirit, beseeching him to
have pity on the child and preserve its life. He then pierced the ears
with a bone, and the nose with a needle; and filled the wounds in the
former with small rolls of bark, and that in the latter with the quill
end of a feather. These were suffered to remain until the wounds healed,
when they were removed, and in their places were substituted tufts of
the down of birds. The ceremony was always accompanied by a feast, and
handsome presents were made to the Shaman and his assistants.

[Illustration:

FIG. 317. (S. about 1–2.) The specimen to the left, the winged type,
is a typical Pennsylvania-New Jersey type. It is quite different
from those of farther west and the upper Mississippi Valley. The one
to the right is not essentially different from kindred specimens
north or west of the Pennsylvania region. From the collection of C.
E. Cromley, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
]

“The holes in the ears of the men and women were of different sizes, and
served to distinguish the sexes;[14] those in the ears of the women
being small, whilst the men sometimes cut a slit almost entirely around
the rim of the ear, which ‘they distend and stretch as much as
possible,’ so much so, in fact, that the loop hangs almost to the
shoulder.[15] Not unfrequently the outer edge of skin is torn apart; and
then the Indian is plunged into the depths of humiliation until, by
paring the broken ends, they can be made to grow together.[16]
Heckwelder[17] reports an instance of an Indian, who was with difficulty
prevented from killing himself on account of an accident of this
character; and he adds that it was owing to the frequency of such
accidents that the custom of stretching the holes in the ears to this
enormous extent was falling into desuetude.

“Of the articles worn in the ears and nose, our accounts are full and
explicit. To a certain extent they were the same—might in fact have been
used indiscriminately; and yet such an arrangement must have been
one-sided, for whilst the nose ornaments could be used in the ears,
there were so many worn in the ears that could not be adapted to the
nose, that it seems advisable to consider them separately. Beginning
then with nose-rings, as this entire class is usually called, we find
that, relatively speaking, they were few in number, and that the
material of which they were generally made was shell. The savages, for
instance, whom Sagard[18] saw in Canada, had a blue bead (patinotre) of
good size which hung down from above, on the upper lip. On the Atlantic
Coast a ‘large pearl, or a piece of silver, gold, or wampum’[19] was
used; and in ‘the interior parts’ of the country, sea-shells were much
worn and were ‘reckoned very ornamental.’[20] In the Gulf States, ‘such
coarse diamonds as their own hilly country produced were, in old times,
fastened with a deer’s sinew to their hair, nose, ears and maccasenes.’
They also, so it is said, formerly used nose-rings and jewels; but, ‘at
present they hang a piece of battered silver or pewter, or a large bead
to the nostril, like the European method of treating swine to prevent
them from rooting.’[21]

“On the other hand, their supply of rings, pendants, and articles of
different kinds worn in the ears, was practically unlimited. Shells in
the shape of beads of different sizes, pendants, and small cylinders
like the stem of a Holland pipe, were in use among the Indians of
Canada, as were small pieces of a red stone worked into the shape of an
arrow-head.[22] The New England and Western Indians indulged in pendants
in ‘the formes of birds, beasts, and fishes, carved out of bone, shells,
and stone’[23] and farther to the south ‘they decorate the lappets of
their ears with pearls, rings, sparkling stones, feathers, flowers,
corals, or silver crosses.’[24] In Carolina they ‘wear great Bobs in
their Ears and sometimes in the Holes thereof they put Eagles and other
Birds Feathers for a Trophy.’[25] Copper, in the shape of beads,
pendants, or wire, was in use from Canada to Florida, as were tufts of
down as large as the fist, oiled and painted red.[26] Fish-bladders,
which are said to have looked like pearl, were worn in the South,[27] as
was a pin made of the interior of a shell, called Burgo, as large as the
little finger and quite as long, with a head to prevent it from slipping
through the hole in which it was inserted.[28] Finally, according to
Strachey,[29] and his account, we may remark, in passing, is a good
summary of the whole subject, ‘their ears they bore with wyde holes,
commonly two or three, and in the same they doe hang chaines of stayned
pearls, braceletts of white bone or shreds of copper, beaten thinne and
bright, and wound up hollowe, and with a great pride, certaine fowles
leggs, eagles, hawkes, turkeys, etc., etc., with beast’s claws, beares,
arrahacounes, squirrels, etc.’

“Closely connected with this style of personal ornamentation, and of
interest on account of the wide field it afforded for the display of
individual taste,[30] were the methods of dressing the hair. To specify
a tithe of the fashions that prevailed in this particular among the
different tribes, or among the members of the same tribe, would take
more time than we can well afford.”

Professor Carr proceeds to discuss at some length the various methods of
hair-dressing, of hair-ornamentation, etc. I omit much of his discourse.

He states that medicine-men in Virginia “‘shave all their heads saving
their creste which they weare in manner of a cokscombe,’ and ‘fasten a
small black birde above one of their eares as a badge of their
office.’”[31]

[Illustration:

FIG. 318. (S. about 1–4.) Types of problematical forms from H. M.
Braun’s collection, East St. Louis, Illinois. Most of the specimens
found near Edwardsville (as were these), not far from the famous
Cahokia group of mounds, seem to be typical of that region. The
specimen to the left, no. 1595, is more of the Wisconsin than of the
Mississippi Valley type. The two to the right are similar to Georgia
and Tennessee forms. All of these are unfinished, except perhaps the
one to the right. Materials: steatite and rose quartz.
]

“On solemn occasions, as on gala-days, the Iroquois wore above the ear a
tuft of the feathers, or the wing, or the whole skin, of some rare
bird;[32] and the Virginia Indians tied up the lock of hair which they
leave full length on the left side of the head, with an ‘arteficyall and
well labored knott, stuck with many colored gew-gawes, as the cast head
or brow-antle of a deare, the hand of their enemie dryed, croisettes of
bright and shyning copper, like the newe moone. Many wore the whole
skyne of a hauke stuffed, with the wings abroad ... and to the feathers
they will fasten a little rattle, about the bignes of the chape of a
rapier, which they take from the tayle of a snake, and some tymes divers
kinds of shells, hanging loose by small purflects or threeds, that,
being shaken as they move, they might make a certaine murmuring or
whisteling noise by gathering wynd, in which they seeme to take great
jollity, and hold yt a kind of bravery.’[33]

[Illustration:

FIG. 319. (S. 1–4.) Four unfinished winged objects from Beloit College
collection, Wisconsin. Material: mottled granite and porphyry. To
work hard materials into these forms must have required both skill
and patience on the part of the natives.
]

“In addition to the articles noted above and worn as ornaments, honors,
etc., there were others that were used as bracelets, necklaces, gorgets,
etc. As a rule they were of bone, pearl, shell, and copper, though the
claws and talons of beasts and birds of prey[34] were also used. Except
occasionally in size, they did not differ materially from the beads,
pendants, etc., that were worn on the head and in the ears. Taking up
these articles in their order, we find that in the Gulf States the
Indians made bracelets of bone. For this purpose they chose the rib of a
deer, which was soaked in boiling water and thus rendered soft and
pliable. It was then worked into the desired shape, and is said to have
been as white and smooth as polished ivory.[35] In Virginia ‘polished,’
or as they are sometimes called ‘smooth bones,’ were used in connection
with ‘pearles and little beedes of copper,’ as necklaces and
ear-rings;[36] and in New England, as we have seen, bones carved in the
shape of birds, beasts and fishes were worn as pendants in the ears; and
in Waymouth’s voyage we are told that they were also used as bracelets.

[Illustration:

FIG. 320. (S. 1–2.) The first stage in the making of the problematical
form. These are of slate and are from Ohio, Indiana, and
Pennsylvania. The upper specimen is a block of slate which has been
worked into shape by means of a heavy hand-hammer. The first stage
is not unlike that observed in the manufacture of flint implements.
The central and lower ones represent the second stage in the process
of pecking, while the one to the right is still further reduced, and
the elevation, strengthening the perforation, is worked into relief.
Andover collection.
]

“Of pearls, there seems to have been an abundance,[37] though they were
unequally distributed. Owing perhaps to this fact, and to the
extravagant accounts of some of the old writers, it has been thought
that they were, not unfrequently, confounded with shell beads; and, yet,
the statements as to their use are too frequent and too detailed in
character, to leave any doubt about the matter, even without the
confirmatory evidence of the mounds. Upon this point the chroniclers of
De Soto’s expedition are in full accord; and whilst we may well doubt
whether the Spaniards took ‘three hundred and ninety-two pounds of
pearls, and little babies and birds made of them’ from the graves near
Cutifachiqui,[38] yet when we are told that pearls ‘of the bigness of
good pease’ were found in Virginia, and that one man ‘gathered together
from among the savage people about five thousand’ of them,[39] we cannot
but admit that there is a foundation of fact in the story of the old
writer, extravagant as it seems to be.”

Professor Carr, in the same paper I have quoted, speaks regarding both
copper and shell in use in early historic times as ornaments.

I shall quote what he has to say on those subjects in their proper
places in subsequent chapters. His article on “Dress and Ornaments,”
ends with these words:—

“With this suggestion, as to the additional use of what was evidently a
leading article in the Indian’s toilet, our investigation must come to a
close. In it we have endeavored not only to picture the dress and
ornaments of our savages, but we have been obliged to examine the
materials of which their dresses and ornaments were made, and to
describe the arts by which these materials were fitted for their several
uses. It has been a laborious task, but fortunately the sources of
information were abundant; and whilst it is probable that our treatment
of the subject has not been as complete as might have been desired, yet
it is believed, that enough has been given to justify us in accepting,
as our own, the statement that ‘from what has been said as to their
method of adorning themselves, it might be inferred that the savages,
instead of adding to their personal beauty (for they are, nearly all,
well made), were really trying to render themselves unnatural and
hideous.’ This is true; and yet when they are in full dress, the
fantastical arrangement of their ornaments not only has nothing in it
that is offensive, but it really possesses a certain charm which is
pleasing in itself and makes them appear to great advantage.”[40]

CHAPTER XIX
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

THE GORGETS

Since we have examined these gorgets and ornaments from a historical
point of view, let us now return to our archæological position and study
them through the natural history method.

In 1906 Dr. Charles Peabody and myself published Bulletin II, “The
So-Called ‘Gorgets.’” This pamphlet was the outcome of a great deal of
study, correspondence, and travel. In that report we published a very
technical description of gorgets, but omitted winged objects and the
crescents and everything except flat and ridged objects with
perforations at the centre or near the ends. None of our objects were
perforated through their long diameter. The work on the gorgets is too
technical to be reproduced here. We measured all of the gorgets in the
Andover and Harvard and other collections, over six hundred, and gave
the diameters in millimetres. This total embraces a number of specimens
seen at Washington and elsewhere, as at Andover and Cambridge there were
four hundred and eight specimens by count. These specimens were examined
by means of a triple lens in every possible way. They were measured by
the metric system, and the size of each one set down, the diameter of
the perforation being given. In “The Stone Age,” I shall adopt the
conclusions reached by Dr. Peabody and myself with some additions.

_Broken and worked Gorgets_

When one studies this class, one learns more than if one confined his
observations to the perfect forms alone. I have presented several
illustrations of broken gorgets, and it is well to comment upon them and
the meaning they unquestionably convey.

Fig. 307 shows a group of these “doctored” gorgets. Each one tells an
interesting story.

[Illustration:

FIG. 321. (S. 1–1.) A beautiful specimen of unfinished problematical
form. Material: dark blue slate. Phillips Academy collection.
Secured by A. B. Winans, Battle Creek, Michigan. The ancient workman
had not completed his pecking process, but had begun to cut and
scrape the surfaces to some extent on either wing. He had left an
elevation in the centre to strengthen that part through which the
perforation must pass. The flint or sandstone cuttings on the
surfaces of the specimen are well brought out in the half-tone.
]

In the centre, to the left, is a broken winged object—broken whether by
accident or design one may not say. But having been broken, it was
drilled through the centre by means of a reed drill, near the lateral
perforation, and worn as an ornament. There are other specimens in the
collection at Phillips Academy that have been broken and made use of as
ornaments. It is probable that in not a few instances these specimens
have been found by subsequent individuals, long afterwards, and made use
of for a purpose entirely foreign to the original maker.

[Illustration:

FIG. 322. (S. about 1–2.) This presents a stone in unfinished winged
form, showing pecking. Material: close-grained sandstone. From the
collection of E. Ralston Goldsborough, Frederick, Maryland.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 323. (S. about 1–2.) Three winged objects. Andover collection.
The upper specimen, to the left, shows that the pecking process has
come to an end. An irregular bump, or projection, is left on either
side to strengthen, and to allow sufficient diameter for the
perforation. The maker had begun to cut a groove, in order to
separate the wings. In the specimen to the right, upper row, the
wings are almost cut out and the object nearly ready for the
polishing stage. Both these specimens exhibit on their surfaces the
marks of flint cutting-tools and are scratched and scarred. The
lower specimen is a complete “butterfly” winged object and is
presented for comparison. The two upper specimens are very important
from an archæological point of view. F. M. Hughes of Plympton, Ohio,
found the one to the right, and Albert L. Addis, Albion, Indiana,
the one to the left.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 324. (S. 1–3.) Four winged, unfinished, problematical forms from
various parts of the country. Material: highly banded slate.
Phillips Academy collection. Two of these were collected by Albert
L. Addis, of Albion, Indiana. The upper one at the right is
interesting in that it has been perforated, as if worn for
suspension in the unfinished stage. Such use is frequently noted in
these objects and is to me an indication of great age, that they
were done by a certain individual, lost, afterwards found by another
individual, an unknown length of time intervening, and perforated.
This, being of the winged type, seems too heavy to be worn suspended
as an ornament, yet the perforation seems to indicate that purpose.
The perforation is different from that ordinarily seen in winged
objects, being at right angles to the faces instead of parallel to
them.
]

In the lower right-hand corner of Fig. 307 is a perforated steatite
object from Ohio. It has been broken and afterwards worn as an ornament.
The former perforations show on either end. Steatite being foreign to
Ohio may account for the fact that so rude an implement had been again
made use of as an ornament. It was originally rather long, possibly over
five inches.

[Illustration:

FIG. 325. (S. 1–3.) A large double-winged problematical form, roughly
broken out, dark gray slate. The unusual size of this object makes
it very interesting. It is about two thirds of an inch in thickness.
It was found by a farmer near the home of Mr. Addis, Albion,
Indiana, to whom the museum of Andover is indebted for a number of
fine specimens of the problematical class.
]

In the Andover collection are many interesting broken gorgets. In some
instances the maker has attempted to repair them, but it is also quite
evident that in others some one drilled additional perforations in order
that the gorgets might be again worn as ornaments. In the lower
left-hand corner of Fig. 307 is another broken winged object. Had the
native wished it to hang with the heavier part downwards he would have
drilled in the small or narrow end rather than along the broad end.
Moreover, the drilling is where the break occurred. In one instance,
Fig. 302, the specimen is so perforated that it was possible to tie the
ends together. This indicates that these things were greatly prized.

[Illustration:

FIG. 326. (S. about 3–5.) Large, unfinished, winged object of
fine-grained, highly banded slate. This shows the specimen at a
stage when the pecking and grinding are completed and the object is
partly polished. After further rubbing, the specimen would be
perforated through the centre, and the edges further ground down.
Collection of J. E. McLain, Bluffton, Indiana.
]

Because of its unusual high polish and slightly oval surface, one cannot
well illustrate a tablet-like gorget which was found by Clarence B.
Moore in Washington County, Florida, in 1902. This is a remarkable
specimen, and although it is set down as having one surface flat and the
other convex, it would be more accurate to say that the flat or upper
surface is slightly hollow. The entire specimen is highly polished, so
much so that it has a glossy appearance. The specimen is broken. After
breaking it has been used, possibly by later Indians, for smoothing the
sinews or similar purposes, as there are grooves worn across its larger
diameter. These grooves almost obliterate the perforation. It is
possible, but not probable, that the specimen was a pipe of the monitor
type. There is a raised circular line still traceable, and this was
originally one inch in diameter. As this is in the centre of the object
at the broken end, where the specimen is one half inch thick, it is
possible that this may have been the base of the bowl.

[Illustration:

FIG. 327. (S. 1–2.) Unfinished problematical forms. From Georgia and
Alabama. Material: quartzite and sandstone. Phillips Academy
collection, Andover.
]

In the centre, to the right in Fig. 307, is half of a winged and
perforated or butterfly-shaped stone. Becoming broken, the maker ground
it until traces of the centre perforation had disappeared. Then he
perforated the stone on either side after the manner of the bird or
saddle stone. One should note that the stone is more polished on either
side of the perforation.

Another winged perforated “butterfly” stone was broken long ago, and the
Indian who found it drilled it at the top and wore it as an ornament.
All the edges and perforations carry patina and evince great age. This
is a very old specimen, and we may construct theories that the second
owner made of it an object entirely different from that intended through
the workmanship of the first.

[Illustration:

FIG. 328. (S. 1–2.) Four problematical forms and one slate spear-head,
from the collection of H. F. Burket, Findlay, Ohio. These specimens
were found in Hancock County, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 329. (S. 2–3.) Three specimens from Stephen Van Rensselaer’s
collection, Newark, New Jersey. These were found near Orange, New
Jersey, and are typical New Jersey specimens. The lower one has been
broken and is covered with patina, and appears to be a very old
specimen. These two lower ones are dark gray slate.
]

The Andover collection contains a broken gorget of curious, mottled
stone. It was found in the Connecticut Valley. There were two
perforations, one on either side of the centre. The one that remains
shows unmistakable wearing in the perforation. The specimen is not a
work of art, but it is one of the most important in this entire series,
if not in the whole museum, because it clearly and positively indicates
that two strings were put through the opening, and the wearing is on
such side of the perforation as could come from two strings and not from
one. The wearing is at the right of the perforation on one side, and at
the left of it on the other. Further, the specimen was worn across the
body or at least tied across something rather than in a vertical
position; the thong or cord slipped and caused the wearing. To the
suggestion that the specimen should show wearing on four sides of the
perforation rather than on two, it may be remarked that the string while
flat and tight against one surface was tied to something on the other
side that elevated or brought it out more from the perforation. Possibly
this may seem ambiguous, but if one experiments with strings, as has
been done, he will observe that it is impossible for one string to cause
the wearings indicated. One string drawn back and forth will cause a
polish on the edges of the perforation at the same places on either
side.

The more one studies these objects the firmer becomes the conviction
that the term gorget, as applied to some of them as a class, is
misleading or even more than misleading. That most of them are gorgets
one may not deny. That a lesser number are not gorgets we are free to
affirm; that the bulk of them one cannot positively assign to this
purpose or that purpose is quite probable.

The study indicated in the description of these various specimens is
based on the collections in the Peabody Museum, the Phillips Academy
Museum, and previous studies on the same types in the joint museums of
the State University and Historical Society of Columbus, together with
extensive reading. As to the examination of the individual specimens, a
number show wearing in such a manner as to preclude the idea of
suspension as gorgets, as this term is understood. Now the term gorget
indicates an ornament of one type or another suspended about the neck or
upon the chest. The wearing in such place as has been noted could only
have resulted from the tying of these specimens, or the fastening of
them with two, three, or even four strings, each stretched to a tension
so as to hold the object firmly. The wearing would naturally occur at
points very different from those which would be in evidence if the
object was simply suspended by means of one string. Again, the form, in
instances, precludes the idea of the gorget.

Certain forms, from their positions on skeletons in burial-places or by
means of reliable evidence on the part of travelers, one can safely call
ornamental gorgets.

I found more of them on prehistoric sites than on Shawano or Delaware
sites in the Ohio Valley. From the surface of South Fort at Fort
Ancient, Warren County, Ohio, I collected one rectangular gorget with
straight sides and two perforations; one oval, with two perforations,
one concave—two perforations; one rectangular pendant, straight sides,
one perforation.

In graves within the South Fort, I found two pendant-shaped gorgets
among decayed human bones. There was one perforation near the end of
each gorget.

In the Coiner mound, three miles east of Frankfort, Ohio, a
diamond-shaped gorget was found under the head of a skeleton.

Three miles down the Scioto River from Chillicothe, in the Redman mound,
were found two gorgets. One with expanded centre, two perforations, with
skeleton. One broad, with concave sides, two perforations, and under
head of skeleton. Both these were of slate.

With skeleton no. 278, in the Hopewell group (explored, 1891), lay a
gorget of cannel coal.

The Storey mound, west of Chillicothe, sheds some light upon the gorget
class. On the right wrist of a skeleton was found a fine expanded centre
gorget of ribbon slate, with two perforations. On the left wrist, one of
the same kind, but not perforated. Also at the left wrist, a concave one
with unusually sharp edges.

In the Roberts mound, Perry County, Ohio, was found a gorget injured by
fire. It was thick, expanded centre, with two perforations, and lay amid
the remains of a cremated skeleton.

At the Corwin mound, one and one half miles north of Waverly, Ohio, a
curious thick stratum of a soft, black substance lay upon the base-line.
In this were several objects of the “problematical” class. One, of
galena, had two perforations, and was almost boat-shaped.

At Beavertown, Ohio, in a mound, the same survey discovered another
slate gorget with straight sides and two perforations.

In all these burials with skeletons, the forms found were chiefly the
pendant, the expanded centre, the ridged and the octagonal outline and
tablets.

Reference has been made to certain ornaments made of broken ceremonials
or broken gorgets. It seems that they may mean more than what is implied
in the simple statement that a broken ornament was re-made into a
serviceable ornament. That the following is probable, it is not claimed,
but the assertion is ventured that it is possible. Since on becoming
broken they are afterwards made into entirely different objects in
shape, is it not possible that in their original form they were made and
used by a much earlier tribe? Were they not found upon the surface by
later natives, and fashioned by them into such ornaments as are common
upon sites occupied in comparatively recent times? If this is not so,
why do all the broken stones, when refashioned, take the form of
ornaments different from those found generally throughout the country?
It may be offered as a suggestion that the original form was a design
common to the tribe that made them. Becoming broken they were cast
aside. Subsequent individuals or tribes made quite differently shaped
gorgets, and accordingly changed the broken gorget of their predecessors
to the pattern that best suited them.

Regarding Wisconsin gorgets, Mr. Charles E. Brown writes for “The Stone
Age”:—

“Wisconsin has produced a large number of gorgets. A few are from mounds
or graves. They range in their distribution from the Wisconsin-Illinois
line to as far north as Barren and Langlade counties, and embrace a
variety of well known as well as some curious forms. A small number are
ornamented with incised markings upon one or both faces. Some bear a
succession of small incisions upon their edges at the extremities or
sides, or in both places.

“Our gorgets are made of slate, steatite, catlinite, sandstone,
limestone, syenite, mica schist, and of other materials. Most specimens
have a single perforation near one extremity or at the middle. A smaller
number have two perforations, these being placed at the middle, or one
near either end. Gorgets with three or more perforations are of rare
occurrence. Unperforated specimens and specimens in which the drilling
has only been begun are occasionally found. Broken and re-drilled
examples occur. The accompanying outlines are of some of the common and
of the infrequent forms.

“Referring to Fig. 292, rows A and B are common and widely distributed
forms. We have them from every county in the southern half and from a
few of the southern counties of northern Wisconsin.

“Row E contains quite common forms. Many with a rude incised
ornamentation. Fine specimens have been recovered in Ozaukee, Kenosha,
Washington, Walworth, Jefferson, Rock, Dane, Dodge, Green Lake, and
Waupaca counties.

“Rectangular and oval gorgets (centre of row E) are also of quite common
occurrence. Examples have been recovered in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Rock,
Dodge, Sauk, Manitowoc, Winnebago, Juneau, Portage, Waupaca, Outagamie,
and other counties.

“Specimens like those in row M have been found in La Fayette, Jefferson,
Waukesha, Winnebago, and several other counties.

“A small number of small perforated stone ornaments, known to local
collectors as ‘pendants,’ have also been found on Wisconsin camp- or
village-sites. These are often circular, oval, or triangular in shape. A
few are in the shape of small animals. These are made of catlinite.”

CHAPTER XX
GROUND STONE

WINGED PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

This remarkable class of unknown objects will be studied first in the
unfinished form. Previous to this page, in Figs. 320 to 328; and
subsequently in Figs. 331 and 356, I have presented nearly all the steps
or stages of process of manufacture in problematical forms. It would
appear to readers that the accumulation of these types is an easy
matter; it is not, but requires much time and patience and an endless
correspondence. I was more than ten years in accumulating a hundred
unfinished problematical forms. These all vary according to locality and
material. There are local cultures, developed in this form of object as
in flint or other types.

There are some sites in this country where shale or slate occur; notably
at Martin’s Creek, Pennsylvania, where we obtained many unfinished
butterfly and winged stones of Pennsylvania form. These materials are
not as hard as granite, but they are not always soft. So far as I can
ascertain, aboriginal man visited such places and secured masses of
material. He reduced this by pecking or pointing with stone hammers or
round blocks of flint (for a flint pebble makes a better hammer than
other stones).

I have, under each of these figures mentioned, stated at some length
what stages of workmanship the objects represent. Reference to these in
conjunction with reading the following paragraphs will acquaint readers
with the essential facts.

After pecking with stone hammers the surfaces and sides of the slate or
shale until he had reduced it to desired shape, the worker then began to
grind the stone. The scratches on several of these specimens indicate
that they were ground vigorously with other gritty stones, or rubbed
back and forth on the edges of larger stones. There is no other way to
account for the scratches on the surfaces.

[Illustration:

FIG. 330. (S. 1–2.) From the collection of Stephen Van Rensselaer.
Found near Orange, New Jersey. These are typical New Jersey types of
ornaments or problematical forms, and very interesting specimens.
The materials are red and gray slate.
]

The average tablet, a flat gorget, must have been made from a piece of
slate or water-worn shale. It is not to be supposed that the native
would put himself to the trouble and inconvenience of reducing a block
of slate larger than the required size. Large fragments of slate, shale,
granite, and blooded quartz he did make into winged objects. Manifestly,
he could not make a winged object out of a thin, flat stone (such as our
Committee have classified under “laminae”). The flat tablets, gorgets
and pendants are more numerous than the winged objects, for the reason
that they are easy to make. Inspection of the specimens illustrated in
this chapter will prove the point I make that many of these objects
required little work, save in shaping the edges. Man cut or ground the
edges until they were concave or convex or angular to suit his fancy.

[Illustration:

FIG. 331. (S. 1–1.) Andover collection. These are presented to show
the use of the reed drill. Unfortunately, the camera does not show
the perforations and the central cores as it should. What appears to
be a rim in each specimen is the dark circular depression about the
core left by the reed drill.
]

Most of these tablets were ground out, or the stone was nice and smooth,
so no grinding was necessary save on the edges. The tablet was then
ready for perforation, and he perforated it and rubbed and polished it
until the scratches had disappeared. In the case of the winged stones
much more care was necessary. The crescents and the ridged stones being
thicker were not as easily broken, and we find fewer broken specimens
among them than of the winged class. There were more broken “butterfly”
or winged stones than of any other class. Because of the thin wings it
was necessary for him to work very carefully, and probably to place one
half of the specimen on a raised surface covered with buckskin or hide
and to rub that until he was ready to turn the specimen and work on the
other wing. At best the process was a long and laborious one, as the
many unfinished objects of this character attest.

[Illustration:

FIG. 332. (S. 1–1.) Andover collection. Short winged object, showing
that perforation was made by means of a reed drill, the core
remaining in the hole. Reed drills were made use of in many of the
larger and problematical forms. Another example of reed drilling is
shown in Fig. 331.
]

A study of the unfinished winged objects in the Andover collection
furnishes one with a great deal of information. When I said that we had
a hundred unfinished winged problematical forms, I meant of those with
exaggerated wings, those in which the wings are the prominent feature.
Of all classes, unfinished objects of all the types shown in the
outlines (Fig. 292), we have over one thousand.

The larger objects in this series indicate that, after being quarried,
or, if not quarried, after the blocks were chipped or hammered, the
process of pecking followed next. Then grinding, scratching, or cutting.
Last of all came rubbing with softer materials and polishing. Another
thing that we proved was that most of these winged objects were drilled
with a reed drill. Illustrations of the core remaining in the centre of
the perforation are shown in Figs. 331 and 332. It is also apparent that
the specimens were not drilled until they were nearly completed. A
specimen is worked down until quite thin before the drilling is
undertaken. Apparently, the pecking has been ended, most of the grinding
done, and the fine grinding and polishing remain to be completed after
the specimen is drilled.

Mr. Paul S. Tooker of Westfield, New Jersey, sent me a hundred and fifty
New Jersey specimens for study and description in “The Stone Age.” Of
these, sixteen represent the problematical-ceremonial class.
Unfortunately, they came too late to be illustrated in “The Stone Age.”

I was pleased to observe in the collection a gorget of pink, hard
sandstone, curiously mottled, being on one side pink, and on the other
variegated with yellow and green bands. Apparently this stone was
considered unusual by the Indians. They had drawn five wigwams near one
end, and a snowshoe and other objects at the other end and in the
centre. There are four notches on each side, made V-shaped, and six in
each end.

In New Jersey the winged stones are more frequently of shale, quartzite,
and granite than of banded slate. This is true of Delaware and lower New
York. The stones are thin in the centre (see Figs. 329 and 330) and the
wings usually curve downwards instead of being at right angles, or
expanding from the perforations. These New Jersey types to me suggest a
bird in motion, and may stand for the “thunder bird,” so common in
American mythology.

Mr. Tooker possesses a broken butterfly form of mica schist. This has
been perforated through the centre at right angles to the original long
perforation, and was worn as an ornament until the rough, broken edges
became polished through use. The New Jersey specimens look old and do
not appear to show white man’s influence in any way.

In the collection was a bit of broken winged object (like that shown in
Fig. 338) of the blooded quartz stone from Arkansas. This specimen was
probably secured by the New Jersey natives through exchange.

Dr. Beauchamp’s remarks on certain specimens in Fig. 337 should be
quoted, and I insert them, save the change from his numbers, which do
not correspond with mine:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 333. (S. 1–4.) Northern Illinois and northern Indiana types, from
W. A. Holmes’s collection, Chicago. The winged type and also several
that defy classification are present; notably, those on the upper
row, the heart-shaped objects at either end, and the central unknown
form with three perforations. The heart-form is occasionally found
in the United States, but is rare. Just what significance it
carries, I am unable to state.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 334. (S. about 1–3.) A group of problematical forms, from the
collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Most of these
are in banded slate, although two are in granite. They will fall
under three or four subdivisions of the classification.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 335. (S. 1–1.) Problematical forms found in Cumberland County,
New Jersey. The smaller one appears to be finished and is highly
polished. The larger one is unfinished. The hole is drilled about
halfway through, leaving a projection which indicates that the
boring was done with a hollow instrument, probably a reed. These
specimens are in the collection of George Hampton, Bridgeton, New
Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 336. (S. 1–1.) Side view of the large form in Fig. 352. George
Hampton’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 337. (S. 2–3.) These are reproduced from plates illustrating Dr.
Wm. M. Beauchamp’s “Polished Stone Articles used by the New York
Aborigines,” New York State Museum _Bulletin_, vol. 4, no. 18. They
have been drawn, which shows the bands in the stone better than do
half-tones. These types are found in New York State and Canada,
Ohio, and Indiana. As one passes into Michigan or south of Kentucky,
the forms and materials change. Attention is called to the central
object, perforated on either side. This was originally a winged
object, but becoming broken was perforated after the manner of a
tablet and used in a way different from that the original form would
indicate. It must be observed, in studying these problematical
forms, that the perforations or drilling are even in all winged
types and the large objects, but in the flat tablets the holes were
rimmed out, and are wide on the face, and small on the reverse side.
]

“Next from the right is a beautiful article and comes from Fabius or
Pompey, much resembling one in the State Museum from that vicinity. It
is made of a beautiful olive-green striped slate, and in form is like a
slender pickaxe, having a central ridge along both sides, from end to
end. Each end has a slight projection. In the centre, on one side, is a
partially effaced ornament. It is seven inches wide by one and one
fourth deep, and the orifice is nine sixteenths of an inch in diameter.
No finer example of this form is on record.

“To the left is a pick-shaped article of black slate, unique in some
respects. The centre is enlarged by a distinct concave sweep on either
side, terminating in a central flattened surface. Near this is a lateral
perforation on either hand, drilled precisely as in the gorgets. No
other has been reported with holes like these, and if the stone had been
placed on a staff, they might have served to attach pendant ornaments.
The sides are covered with transverse lines, suggesting tallies. The
blades are thin, and the total length is six inches, with a depth of one
and one fourth inches. It was found on a camp-site on the Seneca River
in 1875. The ends are abrupt, and may be either broken or unfinished.

“In the lower left-hand corner is a thick, crescent-formed banner-stone
from Skaneateles Lake, made of green striped slate, and one inch deep by
three and three eighths wide. The ends are rounded, and the orifice is a
little over half an inch in diameter, contracting slightly in the
interior of the stone. There are no village-sites near, and but few
small camps.”

Occasionally, there are fine winged objects found in New England, and I
present one in the lower specimen in the photogravure plate, Fig. 338.
This was found in Massachusetts and is of mottled granite. But most of
the New England forms are such as are shown in Fig. 339, from the
collection of Mr. Deisher, and Fig. 342, from the collection of
Professor G. H. Perkins, Burlington, Vermont, and the unfinished one,
Fig. 322. It will be observed that these are quite different from the
winged types of Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio which we have illustrated.
In the photogravure plate, Fig. 338, is a small ceremonial to the right,
of hard, mottled granite from Illinois. A blooded quartz object from
Arkansas is shown to the left, while at the top is a beautiful
“butterfly form” from southern Ohio.

Of the form and distribution of Wisconsin problematical stones, Mr.
Charles E. Brown writes:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 338. _(S. 1–2.)_

_Problematical forms in stone. Localities: Ohio, Massachusetts,
Arkansas. Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, collection._
]

“Wisconsin has produced a large number of specimens of banner-stones,
many of which are of exceptional beauty of material and workmanship.
Unfinished specimens are occasionally found. Portions of broken
specimens (the wings) were sometimes perforated for use as gorgets or
pendants. In the manufacture of local banner-stones slate, syenite,
granite, rhyolite, quartz, and other rocks were employed. The range of
form is quite wide and includes many of the types described from Ohio
and other states. A few forms and varieties from other regions, not yet
described, occur here. The following notes are based upon our present
knowledge of their forms and distribution:—

1. _Tablet or rectangular form._ Fairly common and widely distributed
in southern Wisconsin. Specimens have been recovered in Kenosha,
Dane, Monroe, La Crosse, Fond du Lac, Winnebago, Waupaca, and
Outagamie counties.

2. _Square form._ Specimens of this form are equally as common as the
preceding. Examples have been collected in Washington, Waukesha,
Dodge, Jefferson, Dane, Sauk, Grant, Sheboygan, and Winnebago
counties.

3. _Reel-shaped form._ The only known specimens have come from Green
Lake and Outagamie counties.

[Illustration:

FIG. 339. (S. 1–5.) Problematical form. Material: greenish slate.
Collection of H. K. Deisher, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 340. (S. about 3–10.) Problematical form of cannel coal. This was
found in Mercer County, Ohio, in a gravel-pit. It was on the breast
of a skeleton. Phillips Academy collection.
]

4. _Boat-shaped form._ A single specimen of this shape comes from
Jefferson County; (it resembles no. 3 in Fig. 361.)
* * * * *

5. A fine example of this rare form, from Dane County, is in the
State Historical Museum, at Madison. It measures seven and one
quarter inches in length. Other examples are from Racine,
Kenosha, and Washington counties.

[Illustration:

FIG. 341. (S. 1–2.) Unfinished winged object. From the collection of
Stephen Van Rensselaer, Newark, New Jersey. New Jersey type of
winged stone is interesting in that the wings are graceful and
sloping, usually narrow, and often angular. Compare Figs. 317, 341,
and 342. It will be observed that although there is varying weight
and width in the wings, yet the three specimens present certain
characteristics in common.
]

6. _Butterfly form._ This is one of our most common forms of
Wisconsin banner-stones. It is represented by fine examples in
many public and private collections. Unfinished specimens occur
in several cabinets. The following counties have produced
specimens: Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, Dodge,
Jefferson, Rock, Dane, La Crosse, Manitowoc, Green Lake,
Winnebago, and Waupaca.

[Illustration:

FIG. 342. (S. 1–2.) Winged problematical stone. Vermont. University of
Vermont collection.
]

7. _An allied form, with rounded wings._ Only two examples, one from
Washington and the other from Ozaukee County, are known. The
latter is made of ferruginous quartz, and is in the Joseph
Ringeisen, Jr., collection at Milwaukee.

8. _Oval form._ This form is of quite as common occurrence as the
butterfly form. Nearly all of the specimens are made of plain or
banded slate. Specimens have come from Kenosha, Racine,
Waukesha, Dodge, Dane, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Kewaunee, Brown,
Door, Marquette, Winnebago, Waupaca, and Wood counties. Wood,
Waupaca, and Door counties mark the northern limit of its
distribution. This form also occurs in the adjoining states of
Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa.

[Illustration:

FIG. 343. (S. 1–1.) Winged form of mottled granite. Wisconsin
Historical Society; kindness of the _Wisconsin Archeologist_. One
can distinguish this form at once as typical of the
Wisconsin-Michigan region.
]

9. A related form, of which specimens have been obtained in Racine,
Dane, and Sheboygan counties. It also occurs in Iowa.

10. _Double-crescentic form._ An example of this graceful form in the
State Historical Museum comes from Dane County. Fragmentary
specimens are known from Kenosha and Waupaca counties. All are
fashioned from slate. This form also occurs in Illinois and
Michigan.

11. _Crescent form._ Specimens have been recovered in Racine, Fond du
Lac, and Green Lake counties. Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana have
produced specimens.

12. _Knobbed crescent form._ A fine example, in the C. T. Olen
collection, comes from Omro, Winnebago County. It is made of
banded slate. A fragmentary specimen is reported to have been
found at Winneconne in the same county. Illinois and Ontario
have produced specimens of this form.

13. _Pick-shaped form._ Specimens have been found in Racine,
Washington, Green Lake, and Brown counties. This form also
occurs in Michigan.

14. _L-shaped form._ Specimens of this interesting form have been
obtained in Dodge, Dane, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Columbia, Sheboygan,
Fond du Lac, Marquette, and Manitowoc counties. All are made of
slate.

_Description of Fig. 344._

+------------------------------+
| |
| 1 2 3 |
| |
| 5 |
| 4 6 |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 9 10 |
| |
| 11 12 13 |
| |
+------------------------------+

1. Banded slate, Kentucky.

2. Mottled granite, Trigg County.

3. Banded slate, Meade County.

4. Soft green slate, Madison County.

5. Compact blackstone, Livingston County.

6. Steatite, Madison County.

7. Greenstone, Franklin County.

8. Hard red material, Livingston County.

9. Blooded quartz, Hancock County.

10. Slate, black, Trigg County.

11. Blooded quartz, Oldham County.

12. Green banded slate, Madison County.

13. Quartz, Trigg County.

These specimens, found in Kentucky, are beautiful, highly finished, and
represent the acme of stone-age art in the problematical class. The
double-winged crescents at the top on either side are to be noted. Also
the fine crescent, no. 5. No. 9, of blooded quartz, is a type somewhat
common in the South, but very seldom found in the Ohio Valley and never
in the East, or west of a line drawn between Omaha, Nebraska, and
Dallas, Texas.

No. 13 is of that same beautiful blooded quartz, which material was
selected by the natives because of its fine texture and brilliant
colors. This plate emphasizes that while winged objects, as a general
proposition, may be somewhat alike, yet in the detailed form and
material they are different, and those of one section can be
distinguished from those of another.

[Illustration:

FIG. 344. (S. 1–4.) Problematical forms. B. H. Young’s collection,
Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 345. (S. 1–1.) Ceremonial axe of stone. Found at Thornhill Lake,
Volusia County, Florida. From “Certain Sand Mounds, St. Johns River,
pt. II.” This is one of the angular Southern forms, with expanded
wings. It is not of the butterfly type. It reminds one very strongly
of a Wisconsin-Michigan form which is typified in Fig. 343. There
are few of the winged stones found in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama.
]

Figs. 343, 349, 357 illustrate the Wisconsin types. Other specimens from
Ohio, Indiana, etc., illustrate the more widespread Wisconsin types.

It often happens that a later tribe makes use of an object of ancient
form and special purpose, for some service totally foreign to the mind
of the original owner.

This fact is illustrated in specimen number 38,205, from our Andover
exhibit, shown in Fig. 352, which has a remarkable and interesting
history. It was found in Indiana on the banks of the Wabash River, on
the site of a Miami Indian village. The Miamis lived on that site about
seventy years ago, and the specimen was found shortly after they
departed for their reservation west of the Mississippi. As will be seen,
the object is an unfinished ceremonial, or possibly an ornament.
Material, banded slate. The maker had done little more than block it out
roughly. The specimen is clearly prehistoric and is covered with patina.
It has every appearance of age. It was picked up from its ancient site
by some Miami Indian who was in search of a suitable instrument for
tapping sugar-trees. As the specimen was of the right weight, and shaped
something like a hammer-head, he lashed it in a stick and used it as an
instrument with which to drive pegs or chips into the sugar-maples. The
original handle has been preserved, although it is now frail and much
decayed.

[Illustration:

FIG. 346. (S. 1–3.) Four winged objects and one pick-shaped from the
collection of A. L. Addis, Albion, Indiana. Attention is called to
the central object, a crescent with the broad ends. This type is
interesting, and different from others. Several have been found, but
no one can explain the purpose of these peculiar projections on the
tips of the wings.
]

Moreover, the specimen carries a moral. We cannot explain the purpose of
the “ceremonial” or unknown or “problematical” class through information
or data obtained from modern Indians, and so far as prehistoric times
are concerned, modern folk-lore sheds little light on them. In this case
the Indian made use of an unfinished ceremonial as a rude hand-hammer.
No glimmer of what that specimen stood for in the mind of prehistoric
man entered his head. He saw a convenient tool and he made use of it
accordingly. How long ago that ceremonial was manufactured, it is
impossible to determine. One fact stands forth indisputably, and that is
that the modern Miami had not the faintest conception of the original or
true import of the object he used as a hammer.

[Illustration:

FIG. 347. (S. 1–1.) Very highly polished slate winged object.
Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne, Indiana. This was
originally of butterfly form, such as is shown at the top in Fig.
350, and my theory is that it was broken and the wings ground down
until this form resulted.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 348. (S. 1–6.) This is a group of interesting problematical forms
showing type specimens from Indiana. The double crescent in the
centre is one of the finest of its class I have ever seen. On either
side are two ridged gorgets, the elevation being horn-like in
character. Some tubular pipes from California are shown at the top.
Some of the ornaments are quite unusual. The light-colored one to
the left of the lower part of the double crescent is made of galena.
The bar-amulet, just below the central tubular pipe, is a fine
specimen. Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 349. (S. 2–3.) Problematical forms from the collection of Beloit
College, Wisconsin. The two objects in the centre are not unlike
Ohio Valley forms, but the upper one to the left and the one in the
lower right-hand corner are typical of Wisconsin. These two are made
of mottled granite and beautifully worked.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 350. (S. about 1–2.) Types of finished problematical forms. Ohio
Valley. Of these four winged stones, I would call attention to the
one in the lower right-hand corner. It is very unusual to find an
object with wings so short that it appears more like a reel on which
to wind cord than a true problematical stone. It is believed that it
originally had longer wings, but these becoming broken, were ground
down until nothing remained but what appears in the present
specimen. The object is fully finished, and highly polished.
Phillips Academy collection, Andover, Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 351. (S. 1–3.) A group of winged objects from the collection of
Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Material: banded slate and
black slate. One or two are not entirely completed. An imitation of
horns in stone is shown in the lower specimen. These antler-shaped
stones are not uncommon, although one as pronounced as this type is
rare. It is possible that they were part of a head-dress, as the
perforation would indicate it was worn with the points extending
upwards.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 352. (S. 2–5.) Found in Indiana. Material: banded slate. Handle,
hickory. Phillips Academy collection.
]

CHAPTER XXI
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

PICK AND CRESCENT, THE BOAT-SHAPED, BAR-FORMS, ETC.—CONCLUSIONS

There are many winged perforated stones different from the forms
commonly called banner-stones. In some specimens one of the wings is
omitted, the other being cut angularly, forming the L-shaped objects
shown in Figs. 353 and 354. The L-shaped objects are closely related to
the crescents. I have seen few unfinished objects of the L-shaped class.
A series of six unfinished specimens, pick or crescent type, are shown
in Fig. 356. A comparison of Figs. 355, 356, and 357 will indicate that
the range is from pick-shaped (shown in the centre of Fig. 355) to
slightly curved pick crescents, terminating in examples like the
beautiful large crescent shown in Fig. 358. This specimen is, by the
way, one of the best in any collection in this country. Little or
nothing is known regarding these pick- and crescent-shaped forms and
absolutely nothing regarding the L-shaped. So far as theory is
concerned, I am of the opinion that two of them were worn by men during
ceremonial dances, or something of that sort. Then they were fastened to
the head and stood up on either side in imitation of horns. I have no
evidence of that belief; it is simply my opinion.

BARS AND BAR-AMULETS

The “Handbook” says a little about these. Mr. A. E. Douglas, of the
American Museum, in a pamphlet published some years ago, offered remarks
concerning them. I present Figs. 364 to 368 illustrating these. All
kinds are shown from the straight bar to the ridged bar, to the highly
complicated form shown in Fig. 367. Whether these were worn on the
forearm, or tied to the head, or worn across the chest, I am unable to
state. All these various uses have been assigned them by other
observers.

It will be seen that there are not only straight bars, but bars with the
ends slightly enlarged, as specimen number 22 in Fig. 364, and also
bars, convex above, and flat underneath. One with a ridge along the back
is shown in the lower figure in 365.

The ridged gorgets gradually develop, according to my arrangement, until
they terminate in bars, or the series may be traced the other way. Five
of these are shown in Fig. 366. However, there is this difference, the
bars are perforated or grooved at each end and the ridged gorgets are
perforated on either side of the centre.

[Illustration:

FIG. 353. (S. 2–3.) All of banded slate. Andover collection. These are
the L-shaped or horn-shaped problematical forms, regarding which
absolutely nothing is known. Reference to our series of outlines
presented in Fig. 292 will indicate that there is gradual
progression in this series. The slate bars are slightly curved,
forming the dark, L-shaped type shown in the centre of the lower
row. I know nothing about these objects.
]

The remarkable specimen from Iowa presented in Fig. 367 is the most
highly developed bar-amulet that I have seen in any collection.

Fig. 360 in the upper right-hand corner is an engraved spool-shaped
object of sandstone. Numbers of these have been found in the United
States. They are of various sizes and diameters for the most part
engraved in various lines, circles, etc. The best of the shorter
articles dealing with these was published in _The Antiquarian_
(Columbus, 1897) page 172, and was written by Mr. A. F. Berlin.

Dr. Thomas Wilson in _The Swastika_, page 975, speaks of these
spool-shaped ornaments and draws comparisons between those found in
America and foreign countries. Wilson thought that they were bobbins on
which thread was wound. They appear to have been highly appreciated by
the aborigines, for they are always carefully made and decorated with
Maltese and St. Andrews crosses, zig-zag lines, sun symbols, etc.

[Illustration:

FIG. 354. (S. 1–1.) Collection of W. F. Matchett, Pierceton, Indiana.
]

The “Handbook of American Indians,” page 157, contains brief
descriptions of boat-stones, written by Gerard Fowke and Professor
Holmes. I quote their remarks:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 355 is a group of six objects from the Andover collection. (Size
1–2.) These illustrate the type of problematical form, a straight
body sloping toward the ends, and running the perforations
invariably at right angles to the grain. The two on either side are
ordinary crescent-shape. The one at the bottom is a winged type, but
is not cut down on either side to bring the wings into review.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 356. (S. 1–2.) The evolution of the crescent from the rough block
of red slate at the top, which has been pecked into shape, down to
the completed crescent at the bottom. Phillips Academy collection,
Andover. This series, arranged from the Andover collection, is made
up of specimens from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Indiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 357. (S. 1–2.) From the collection of Rev. James Savage, Detroit,
Michigan. Three pick-shaped objects, half-size, which are described
elsewhere in the text.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 358. (S. 1–2.) is a highly specialized crescent with flaring
ends. It is beautifully worked, highly finished, and was found by
Willard H. Davis, near the mouth of the Muskingum River in southern
Ohio.
]

“Prehistoric objects of polished stone having somewhat the shape of a
canoe, the use of which is unknown. Some have straight parallel sides
and square ends; in others the sides converge to a blunt point. A
vertical section cut lengthwise of either is approximately triangular,
the long face is more or less hollow, and there is usually a perforation
near each end; some have a groove on the outer or convex side,
apparently to receive a cord passed through the holes. Sometimes there
is a keel-like projection in which this groove is cut. It is surmised
that they were employed as charms or talismans and carried about the
person. They are found sparingly in most of the states east of the
Mississippi River, as well as in Canada. Those in the Northern States
are made principally of slate, in the South and West steatite is most
common, but other varieties of stone were used. In form some of these
objects approach the plummets and are perforated at one end for
suspension; others approximate the cones and hemispheres. Analogous
objects are found on the Pacific Coast, some of which are manifestly
modeled after the native canoe, while others resemble the boat-stones of
the East, although often perforated at one end for suspension.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 359. (S. 1–1.) Phillips Academy collection. This figure shows an
engraved spool in the upper right-hand corner, an L-shaped object
below, and a peculiar slate ornament in which an angular opening has
been cut. Whether the spool-shaped object should be classed with
plummets or in the problematical series, I do not know.
]

Dr. Thomas Wilson had a theory that these boat-stones were made to ward
off evil and that in the hollow of the boat-stone was tied a wooden
effigy of a human being; that boat-stone and effigy were put away for a
certain length of time, and thus the evil was avoided or the influence
of the effigy rendered of no effect.

[Illustration:

FIG. 360. (S. 1–2.) Andover collection. An interesting spool-shaped
object in the centre, a highly ornamental plummet at the left, all
of sandstone; rare slate bead at the right.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 361. (S. 1–1.) From the collection of A. Setterlun, The Dalles,
Oregon.
]

CONCLUSIONS AS TO GORGETS, WINGED OBJECTS, ETC.

In the preceding pages I have had so much to say about supposed use of
problematical forms, that there is little need for lengthy conclusions.
Moreover, in general Conclusions in “The Stone Age,” I shall consider
the meaning of these and other things in more detail.

[Illustration:

FIG. 362. (S. 1–3.) Four beautiful boat-stones from the collection of
B. H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky. All are highly executed and
polished, from various portions of Kentucky. Materials: Greenstone
and banded slate.
]

Many of the tablets or winged objects have been called “shuttles,” and
were supposed to have been used in the weaving of cloth and nets. Other
less sensible uses have been applied to these things.

It has always seemed to me ridiculous to claim that the prehistoric
peoples made use of objects, on which a great deal of time and hard
labor were spent, for ordinary purposes. Last summer when among the
Ojibwa, I made particular inquiries of them regarding the use of various
implements; particularly the small triangular boards, cut in the form of
stone tablets, with which I saw old women weaving nets. They informed me
that they used similar small, flat pieces of wood with concave ends in
olden times.

[Illustration:

FIG. 363. (S. 1–2.) Five ridged gorgets from the Andover collection.
Attention is called to the one with the horn-like elevation.
]

An Indian could make a wooden shuttle in far less time than required to
make one of stone, and if he dropped the wooden shuttle it would not
break. If he dropped a winged stone and it struck any hard substance, it
would be pretty apt to break or at least to be nicked.

Regarding the winged and other forms it is significant that no great
number of these objects are found in the mounds, rather do they occur in
the surface, pretty much anywhere in the Mississippi Valley and the St.
Lawrence basin. In the great mounds of the Ohio Valley and also in the
South, copper objects and pipes are common, the winged specimens in
slate are very rare. My own opinion is that these things are older than
the mounds. The gorgets with raised surfaces, such as Fig. 363, occur
more frequently in the mounds of the Scioto Valley, than other types,
excepting pendants, which are common everywhere. The same is true of the
large squared or rectangular tablets; the double-winged stones are
almost entirely wanting in the mounds and graves.

The beauty and symmetry of these specimens have always appealed to
students of prehistoric art.

It is interesting to note—and one is persuaded that it has a direct
bearing upon the usages to which the aborigines put these objects—that
few of the forms are found accompanying the burials, and that these few
are confined to the pendant shape, the tablet, and the “boat-shaped”—not
hollowed-out. That is, that the “canoe-form” is so seldom found in
interments as to be considered an exception, and that even when found it
is not hollowed-out.

[Illustration:

FIG. 364. (S. 1–2.) Slender bar-amulets. Collection of Albert L.
Addis, Albion, Indiana. These three were found near Albion and are
more slender than most bars.
]

Certain forms are common in stated localities. When one has time to list
all of the “gorget” class now on exhibition in the museums, it will be
possible to deduce further conclusions. Until then, what facts have
already been ascertained must suffice.

Cushing thought that many of these slate and granite gorgets were bases
on which bird-stones and similar effigies were mounted. Formerly I was
inclined to accept Cushing’s views, but as careful study of the soft
slate surfaces fails to reveal scratches, I am not now prepared to
accept his suggestion. Rather let it be said that, if one is to theorize
at all, the more complicated of these gorgets belong to the shamanistic
individuals who were numerous in primitive tribes; that these, adorned
with a variety of feathers and gewgaws, were brought before the lodge or
into the central dance-ground and placed before the shaman, or that they
were carried by him, or worn upon his person.

[Illustration:

FIG. 365. (S. 1–2.) Bar-amulets; Phillips Academy collection, Andover.
These range from base with slightly turned ends to long straight
objects pointed at either end. They are of black slate, perforated
in the bottom like a bird-stone.
]

The fact that so few of these are found in burial-places leads me to
believe that the problematical class was made and used largely in times
previous to the interment of bodies in mounds, graves, or cliff-houses.
That is, they were all very old and did not belong to mound-building
tribes or to those who were buried in graves. Of course, some of them
did, but I am speaking of the average, for a small per cent of them were
found in burial-places. Professor Edward H. Williams, Jr., of Woodstock,
Vermont, examined with great care for me the surfaces of a number of
these problematical forms, testing them from a point of view of
chemistry and mineralogy, to ascertain what elements in the stones
weathered out and what elements remained. In the Conclusions, Volume II,
I present his observations, referring to them by our museum numbers,
instead of by the figure numbers used in “The Stone Age.” His
observations are of great importance in indicating that many of these
stones are old. How old, I do not attempt to say in years, but that the
most of them were made and used long before the Christian era, I firmly
believe.

[Illustration:

FIG. 366. (S. 1–3.) Bar-amulet and four ridged objects, somewhat
different from bar-amulets, but of such forms as could be ranged in
a series, beginning with bar-amulet and ending in a ridged type, or
_vice versa_.
]

There is another point with reference to the problematical class that I
wish to place before readers. If there is anything that denotes peculiar
development here in America on the part of stone-age man—a development
dissimilar to that found anywhere else in the world, it is evinced in
these strange, problematical forms. Here and there one will find a stone
pendant or simple ornament similar to stone pendants elsewhere in the
world. But as a class these things stand aloof as distinctly American.
Compare them with stone objects from any other country in the world, and
you will catch my meaning. They are unique, they are individualistic. I
defy any one to pick a series in Egypt, Europe, Babylonia, or elsewhere
that will type for type compare with them. They constitute a problem in
American archæology. We have seen that on the forearm or chest, or the
hand, or the neck, of skeleton remains some of these are found. But most
of the forms have not been found buried with the dead. The few vague
references to “charm-stones,” and “bull-roarers” are feeble attempts at
explanation. Certainly, we do not know, in the broad sense, what they
meant to stone-age man. To dismiss them with a wave of the hand as
witchcraft stones is likewise a confession to ignorance and of inability
to solve the problem. I find no specific reference among the works of
early writers to their use. Their distribution is not confined to the
territory of the Iroquois, the Creeks, the Delawares, the Eries, or the
Ojibwa. While they are most numerous in the areas occupied by such
tribes, that does not mean that they were used by those same Indians.

[Illustration:

FIG. 368. (S. 1–2.) Two of a series of peculiar pointed type regarding
which I am totally in the dark. Material: black slate and granite.
Phillips Academy collection, Andover. The one to the right has a
groove about the top. There are many of these in all museum
collections, and I am sorry I cannot illustrate a large number of
them. They range from the ordinary ridged form, unperforated, to
long, slender, almost pick-shaped objects. They constitute a study
in themselves. There have been many theories as to drilled and
winged objects, but these pendant-shaped, “coffin”-shaped, and
kindred stones not only defy classification, but there is absolutely
no use to be assigned them. There are no perforations, seldom are
they grooved, and there is no way whereby one might judge for what
purpose they were made use of. Truly the word “problematical”
belongs to them more than to any other type of stone objects.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 367. (S. 1–2.) Peculiar bar-amulet, of which three views are
represented; top, side, and bottom. John Merkel collection,
Bellevue, Iowa. Material: mottled granite.
]

I closed my part of the Bulletin no. 2, on gorgets, Phillips Academy
publication, with the same quotations with which I close this chapter on
“Problematical Forms.” I see no reason to change it, although it applied
to gorgets exclusively:—

“If one were to find Zuñi paraphernalia independent of any association
of Zuñi people, and if the discoverer had no knowledge of the Zuñis, he
could not conceive of the peculiar, not to say incredible, usages to
which Zuñi charms are put. The Zuñis gave up most of their time to
ceremonies. Other native tribes may have done the same.

“In the earlier Jesuit ‘Relations’ the natives are said to have devoted
many days to ceremonies, incantations, etc.,—‘Works of the Devil.’ But
there is no clear and tangible reference, in all of the voluminous
writings of early explorers, to the more complicated gorgets, to the
forms more elaborate than the merely pendant shape. The suggestion
forces itself that these objects were made and used before the Discovery
by Columbus.”

CHAPTER XXII
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

THE SPUD-SHAPED IMPLEMENT

Contrary to many of the preceding classes of ancient artifacts, we have
two excellent modern authorities on the stone spud-shaped implement. To
begin with, permit me to register a protest against the word
“spud”—which is suggestive of a heavy iron implement in the hands of a
laborer. It is to be supposed that the word “spud” is retained because
no one has proposed a good substitute.

In the _Wisconsin Archeologist_[41] Mr. Charles E. Brown published a
paper describing the spud. This could in no wise be improved upon, and
with the omission of some local specimens he has cited, I quote most of
his article. His figure numbers have been changed to suit my figures,
and a few paragraphs at the end are not included:

“The class, or more properly, classes of stone implements of which a
consideration is attempted in the following pages, have been variously
referred to in our archæological literature as spuds, hoe, spade and
paddle-shaped implements and spade ceremonials and by other names
equally indefinite and undesirable, and the only explanation which can
be offered for the adoption of the present title is, that though not
entirely satisfactory, it has nevertheless the advantage of being the
one by which these varied, peculiar, and interesting objects are now
most familiarly known to the archæologists and collectors of our own
state and of the country at large.

“It is apparent that the term ‘spud,’ as at present employed, is being
used to define and include within its scope at least two classes of
stone implements, which, though they resemble each other in a general
way, were, if we may judge by the difference in condition, workmanship,
and general adaptability, intended for and undoubtedly served quite
distinct purposes.

“Save that presented by Fowke, which embraces only such forms as are
represented in the United States National Museum and does not include
the Western form, no regular classification of these implements appears
to have been attempted. In a like manner, nearly all of the published
descriptions of various authors relate only to Southern and Southeastern
forms and but little or no effort appears to have been made to assemble
the data or compare them with others.

“Such being the case, a re-classification or re-consideration of all of
the known types, is both timely and necessary.

[Illustration:

FIG. 369. (S. 1–2.) Two beautiful black slate ornaments from Fulton
County, Kentucky. The one to the left is almost spudlike in
character, but is too slender to be considered a true spud.
Ornaments of this form are very rare and doubtless represent
individual fancy, as do many of these things. Collection of B. H.
Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

“In the following convenient classification which is based upon a rather
exhaustive study of the available specimens and literature, the writer
has attempted to explain to his brother students what are the
differences both in form and probable mode of application of the several
classes of these implements. This he has supplemented with extracts from
the published descriptions, notes, suggestions, and theories advanced by
leading archæologists and with such additional data as he has himself
been able to collect.

“Those who have undertaken similar studies will appreciate the
difficulties with which he has had to contend. It is therefore
unnecessary to recall them here. The rather broad divisions proposed may
hardly be found to include all of the known forms, yet the
classification is probably as good as any that can be devised in the
present and as yet limited state of our knowledge. The author desires to
acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. J. F. Snyder, Mr. Harlan I. Smith,
Prof. T. H. Lewis, Prof. W. K. Moorehead, Hon. J. V. Brower, Rev. James
Savage, Rev. E. C. Mitchell, and others for suggestions and data
received and to his brother students in various parts of Wisconsin for
the loan of material from their collections.

_Classification_

“In the first of these classes may be included implements answering the
following description:—

“Class A, see Fig. 376. Blade broad, of a semi-circular,
semi-elliptical, or somewhat hexagonal or triangular shape, flat or
slightly convex, thickest near the handle and ground down to a dull
rounded or fairly thin edge in front; shoulders square or sloping, in
some cases rounded or barbed; handle generally long, tapering to a blunt
point, and usually circular or elliptical in section. Some examples have
the edge of the blade near the shoulder ornamented with incisions or
deep notches and others also have incisions at the extremity of the
handle. These implements are as a class graceful and beautiful objects
and represent a high type of aboriginal stone art. They are usually
wrought of hard primitive rock and are generally highly polished. Nearly
all are of large size, the largest known example measuring 22 3–4 inches
in length. Of their distribution Mr. Clarence B. Moore says: ‘Unlike so
many of our aboriginal relics, this implement is of a type unknown in
Europe. It is comparatively rare, though of wide distribution in the
United States.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 370. (S. about 1–2.) Collection of L. B. Ogden, Penn Yan, New
York. At the bottom is a long slender ornament with slightly
spade-like ends. At the left is the hoe-shaped implement which may
be said to belong to the spud class.
]

“As the greater number of the known examples have been obtained in the
Southern and Southeastern United States, that is generally considered to
be the natural habitat of this class of stone artifacts. Specimens have
been procured in districts as far north as Canada, but there is every
reason to believe that these have been brought from some distant
Southern or Southeastern locality in the course of aboriginal trade or
war relations. It is this class of spade, or paddle-shaped spud, which
we find most frequently described and figured in our archæological
literature, and which in their endeavors to understand its precise
office has cost so much trouble to our leading archæologists. Some idea
of the several theories and suggestions thus advanced may be gleaned
from the following extracts:—

“Dr. Charles Rau, in a chapter devoted to a consideration of ‘Scraper
and Spade-like Implements,’ figures one and describes another of these
implements. He speaks of their resemblance to diminutive spades, but
does not assert that they were so employed. One of these in the
collection of Dr. Joseph Jones, now in the University of Louisiana at
New Orleans, was taken from a grave mound at Old Town, Tennessee. It is
made of greenstone and is 17 1–2 inches in length. The other specimen is
from South Carolina.

“Colonel C. C. Jones also describes and figures the Jones spud, and
adds: ‘We suppose this to have been an agricultural tool.’

“Gerard Fowke describes and figures a specimen fashioned of chloritic
slate, from Prairie County, Arkansas. His remarks are intended to apply
to both this and the perforated class of spuds. He says: ‘They are,
usually, of a comparatively soft material, carefully worked and
polished, and bear no marks of rough usage. On the other hand, they are
too large for ornament. Perhaps their office may have been in some
ceremony or game.’ He states that old residents of the Shenandoah Valley
claimed that the last century Indians of that locality used implements
of similar pattern for removing the bark from trees.

“General Gates P. Thruston figures three of these implements, including
a very handsome specimen in his own collection which was found in the
stone grave settlement near Nashville, Tennessee. He says of them: ‘As
no other more practical use has been suggested as to them, we call them
ceremonial spades or maces.’ He also describes two others, ‘one 15 3–4
inches long and the other a delicate little type 5 1–2 inches in
length,’ and concludes his description with the following statement:
‘These implements are too dull for cutting purposes and must have been
too valuable for use as ordinary agricultural or mechanical tools.’

“Mr. Clarence B. Moore figures several fine specimens in the magnificent
reports of his explorations. One of these, 14 inches in length, is made
of sassurite and was taken from the Shields mound in Duval County,
Florida. Another of polished claystone and 11 inches in length was
procured from Mt. Royal (mound) in Putnam County, Florida. The same
author credits Thomas Wilson, Esq., for a report of two of these
implements, one of blue trap rock, highly polished, found near Columbia,
South Carolina, and the other from Kentucky.

“He quotes Dr. Joseph Jones, who says: ‘Several conjectures have been
formed as to the use of these singular implements. Some have supposed
them to have been used in agriculture, the flat head being employed as a
spade and the round handle for making small holes in the earth for the
deposit of Indian corn; others believe that they were used to strip bark
from trees; others again, that they were used in dressing hides, in
excavating caves, or in felling trees after the wood has been charred by
fire. It is possible that they may have been used for all these purposes
and also as warlike weapons, since it would be easy to cleave or
fracture the human skull with a single blow from one of these stone
implements.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 371. (S. 1–3.) Two beautiful hoe- or spud-shaped objects from B.
H. Young’s collection. The one to the left is made of greenstone,
that to the right of cannel coal. Cumberland Valley, Kentucky.
]

“Mr. Moore concludes his remarks as follows: ‘Mr. Thruston reports a
number of these implements from various parts of Tennessee, and rightly,
we think, classes them as ceremonial. We consider them of too infrequent
occurrence to suggest their employment for any practical use. We have
been able to learn of none showing breakage or signs of use and some are
too small in size to render them useful as weapons. Moreover the
tally-marks on certain specimens connect them with the ceremonial
class.’

“In closing this chapter the author desires to present the following
conclusions and remarks which, though at variance with much that has
been written concerning the purpose of this class of implements, are, he
believes, worthy of consideration:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 372. (S. about 1–6.) Wisconsin Archæological Society collection.
]

“He is convinced that further researches in the field and examination of
the thousands of public and private collections of our country will show
that these implements are of more frequent occurrence than we entertain
any idea of at present. The very considerable amount of additional data
which he has been able to collect in his own and adjoining states would
indicate as much.

“Contrary to what has been supposed some broken and mutilated specimens
have been found.

“Such specimens as have come to his notice and which he has been able to
examine were generally so substantially fashioned and their blades so
edged as to suggest their employment for a practical purpose, though
possibly not for all or any of those which have been suggested.

[Illustration:

FIG. 373. (S. 1–2.) Black stone spud ceremonial. From Kyle mound, near
Columbus, Georgia. Collection of H. M. Whelpley, St. Louis,
Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 374. (S. 2–3.) Collection of C. B. Moore. Ceremonial axe of
stone. Mound C, Black Warrior River, Alabama. Plutonic rock.
]

“The presence of notches or incisions upon the blades and handles of
some examples does not imply a relationship with objects of the
so-called ‘ceremonial class,’ any more than do the flutings upon the
polls and blades of a fairly numerous class of Wisconsin grooved stone
axes, which, notwithstanding their often artistic ornamentation, are of
equal value for service and present the same evidence of hard usage that
other stone axes have received.

“Class B. See Fig. 372. Blade generally short, crescent-shaped or oval,
convex or flat, reduced to a sharp cutting edge, shoulder when present
also partially edged; handle generally of short or medium size, of
nearly uniform width, circular, elliptical, less frequently square or
somewhat rectangular in section.

“Diorite, diabase, and granite appear to have been most employed in the
making of these implements. Specimens made of slate, sandstone, and
other materials are known.

“They are usually quite smooth and polished. The sides of the handle are
frequently pecked or left unpolished as if to afford a better grip for
the hand. The notches and incisions which characterize many specimens of
the former class are absent in this. There is a well-marked tendency in
some of the smaller types toward celt forms.

“The blades of a majority of these implements exhibit nicks and
fractures and other unmistakable signs of use. Broken specimens are
common and there can be no doubt of their having been employed by the
aborigines for one or more useful purposes.

“Dr. J. F. Snyder, who is well acquainted with these implements, says of
them: ‘These indigenous specimens were evidently tools in common use. It
is readily to be seen that they were serviceable appliances for
stripping the bark from trees, for skinning large animals, for dressing
hides, and a variety of domestic purposes.’

“Honorable J. V. Brower of St. Paul, who has spent fifty years in
studying the habits and customs of the Northwestern Indian tribes at
their camping-grounds, and whose work in the archæological field is well
known, says:—

“‘They were most likely used in the process of making canoes from
burned-out logs.’ He has not found them in Kansas, where ‘boat tools
were very scarce, simply because they used bull-boats instead of log
canoes.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 375. (S. 1–4.) Collection of J. R. Lovejoy, Schenectady, New
York. Small groove near small end. Sixteen notches are upon the more
perfect surface. Dark greenish stone, smooth as satin.
]

“This, then, is the form of stone implement which has come to be
designated by the name of ‘spud’ by Western archæologists and of which
curiously enough little or nothing has been written.

“The majority of the implements illustrated and described in this
article as Wisconsin types, belong to this class. Dr. Snyder and others
have informed me of the occurrence of these implements in Illinois,
Honorable J. V. Brower, Professor T. H. Lewis, Reverend E. C. Mitchell,
and others, of their being found in various localities in Minnesota and
North and South Dakota. The writer has seen specimens from Ohio,
Michigan, and Iowa. It is quite probable that further research will show
them to be quite common in nearly all of these states.

“In the Terry collection, in the American Museum of Natural History,
there is an example (T. 2011) of this type. It is of limestone and comes
from Charleston, Missouri. Mr. H. P. Hamilton has a specimen which was
found near El Paso, Texas.

“Class C. Broad flattish implements, generally of comparatively small
size. (See Figs. 371 and 373.)

“Blade broad, nearly circular, elliptical or semi-elliptical in shape,
edge fairly thick and smooth, or thin and sharp, shoulders rounded or
sharply pointed; handle narrower than the blade, flat or convex, sides
straight or curved, parallel or slightly tapering to the top.

“Some specimens have the handle perforated, as if it were intended to
attach them to the person by means of a thong passed through the hole.
It is quite probable that some of these, and of the finer unperforated
forms as well, are, as has already been suggested, deserving of being
classed with the stone ornaments known as gorgets. Their generally small
size, soft material, shape, finish, and the condition of their edges,
would appear to make such a separation desirable and proper.

“In the making of others, greenstone and other hard rocks have been
employed. Many of these are roughly made and have quite sharp cutting
edges. There is a tendency on the part of some of these toward a scraper
form, and it is quite likely that they were utilized for such or a
similar domestic purpose.

“There appears to be but little reason for associating any of these
implements with the large paddle-form (Class A), as some writers have
done. Some examples might be included with the former class (B) as
medium types.

“Implements of this class are said to be of fairly common occurrence in
the South and specimens are to be seen in various public and private
collections, and have been described by various authors from Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and
Florida. The writer has sketches of several specimens which were found
in Ohio.

“Mr. W. H. Ellsworth formerly possessed two specimens of this class, one
made of slate and the other of red sandstone, which were found near
Stafford, Tolland County, Connecticut.”

Mr. Clarence B. Moore, who has conducted extensive explorations in
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, etc., is an authority on
archæology in the South. After Mr. Brown’s paper appeared, Mr. Moore
wrote an article for the _American Anthropologist_ (July-September,
1903, p. 498), in which is contained much additional and valuable
information. I quote certain portions of it:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 376. (S. 1–3.) Seven spud-shaped objects of slate and greenstone.
These range from 3 1–8 to 17 1–4 inches. All are from sites along
the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers in southwestern Kentucky.
Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

“As I have found, in place, in Florida, in Georgia, and in Alabama, a
considerable number of what have been called ‘hoe-shaped implements’
(Mr. Brown’s ‘Class C,’ among spuds, though he differentiates their uses
from those of the other two classes), I have thought a description of
these ‘implements’ found by me might be of interest.

“Three of these ‘implements,’ all beautifully made of hard stone, all
with perforations, came from a mound on the ‘Charlotte Thompson place,’
near Montgomery, Alabama. One of these specimens clearly bears the marks
left by a handle. The shank has projected beyond the handle on one side;
on the other side the line of the handle passes across the top of the
perforation. Another ‘implement’ has similar traces of a handle which
are less distinctly marked.

* * * * *

“An interesting feature is that marks made by a drill, probably a reed,
since the nucleus of a core is apparent, are plainly visible on the
implement. Seemingly the endeavor to perforate the shank was abandoned
after several attempts. The line left by one side of the handle is just
above where the perforation was to have been.”

* * * * *

From the twelve specimens found by Mr. C. B. Moore in his explorations
he draws conclusions as follows:—

“From the soft character of the stones from which some of these
‘implements’ are made, it would not seem that they were intended for
active use.

“As some are not pierced, and as others have the hole too low on the
shank to allow graceful suspension, it does not seem likely that these
objects were used as ornaments or that the hole was intended for
attachment to the person.

“Inasmuch as on some of these, marks left by a handle are plainly
discernible, probably all were used with handles, some of which left no
trace. On certain ‘celts’ also one plainly sees where handles have been,
but more frequently no marks are apparent.

“Presumably, then, the ‘hoe-shaped implement’ was an axe and, as it was
not intended for active use, it was a ceremonial axe, as I have
maintained in previous writings; and the hole, when it existed, was to
lash the blade more firmly to the handle. Perhaps, where the hole is not
present, the blade was used without one, since the hole is not
indispensable; or just as likely an unfinished object was buried with
the dead. The discovery of cases of this kind abound in mound work.”

CHAPTER XXIII
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

PLUMMET-SHAPED STONES: STONE RINGS

For the instruction of readers, we are fortunate in having to recommend
a monograph entitled “The So-Called Plummets,” which was written by Dr.
Charles Peabody.[42] This contains an exhaustive description of such
forms of objects as are illustrated in Figs. 377–383. Dr. Peabody
examined all that the writers have said with reference to these
interesting, problematical forms. The many theories offered were
presented by him in the form of a table which is herewith reproduced.

I. In connection with fishing. │1. Drag-line sinkers.
„ „ │2. Fishing-line sinkers (above
│ hook).
„ „ │3. Fishing-line sinkers (below
│ hook).
„ „ │4. Net-sinkers.
„ „ │5. Bait and hook combined.
───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
II. In connection with the chase │6. As slingstones.
or warfare. │
„ „ │7. As black-jacks.
„ „ │8. As bolas.
───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
III. In connection with textiles. │9. Twine or sinew twisters.
„ „ │10. Spinning-weights.
„ „ │11. Netting-weights.
„ „ │12. Weaving-weights.
───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
IV. In connection with hitting or│13. Hand-pestles.
grinding. │
„ „ │14. Hanging-pestles.
„ „ │15. Paint-stones.
„ „ │16. Rubbing-stones.
„ „ │17. Hammers.
───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
V. As ornaments. │18. Ear ornaments.
„ „ │19. Simple pendants.
───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
VI. With superstitious │20. Amulets and
significance. │
„ „ │21. Charm-stones.
„ „ │22. Lucky stones.
───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────
VII. As drum-rattles. │
VIII. As true plummets. │
IX. As game stones. │
X. In connection with phallic │
worship. │

[Illustration:

FIG. 377. (S. 1–3.) Four porphyry plummets from the Peabody Museum
collection, Salem, Massachusetts. A number of these were found
together, not far from Ipswich. The Salem collection contains
numerous examples of fine plummet-shaped stones. They range from
those having a narrow neck to those with broad necks. In some, there
is a sudden swelling between the neck and body of the plummet.
Usually, the bases are round, but occasionally there is a variation
in the lines of contour. All four types are shown in this figure.
]

All of the above uses were assigned by various writers. Now and then
bright-colored stones, slender and oval in form, have been made use of
by tribes in the far North and on islands of the sea as fish lure, just
as we make use of bright spoons in trolling. But the average fresh-water
fish would not be attracted by such clumsy lures. I have seen objects
similar to those shown in Fig. 293 in the Peabody Museum, Cambridge, and
in the Smithsonian Institution, which were made use of for such
purposes. But these are very different, in form, as readers will observe
by reference, from plummets. Among observers, it is generally accepted,
that in the Delaware and Susquehanna valleys where many common, flat
pebbles are found, the notches on these indicate that they were made use
of as net-sinkers. I have seen old Ojibwa Indians on White Earth
reservation using such sinkers as net-weights. Although several writers,
including Mr. Meredith, claim that plummets were made use of in
line-fishing, I cannot bring myself to accept the statement.

[Illustration:

FIG. 378. (S. 1–2.) Plummets from Phillips Academy collection,
Andover, Massachusetts. These are from New England, Ohio, and West
Virginia. The form varies from long cylindrical-shaped objects to
simple oval plummets. Occasionally specimens are gracefully beveled
to a point, as in the second specimen from the bottom. There is an
infinite variety, as will be observed by studying these forms.
Materials: sandstone, granite, and shale.
]

It seems to me that the uses assigned under V and VI are more probable.
I am of the opinion that we can set aside the proposal under IV, that
plummets served as hand-pestles, they being too small for that purpose.
All the paint-pestles I have ever observed were miniature hand-pestles,
or “mullers,” and not grooved.

[Illustration:

FIG. 379. (S. 1–4.) This figure shows a series of plummet-shaped
stones from California. These are in the Peabody Museum, Harvard
University. Quite a number of these are not grooved. More highly
specialized plummets from California are shown in Fig. 383. Nobody
has ever satisfactorily explained the anchor-shaped stones from
along the Pacific Coast, some of which are illustrated in this
figure.
]

There is presented by Dr. Peabody on page 25 of his paper, the opinion
that these might be worn about the neck by a man when fishing or
hunting, rather than that they were in actual use as a part of fishing
or hunting paraphernalia. Here we have what seems to me to be the
solution of the mystery. The charm-stone brought luck to the man in his
pursuits of game on land and fish in the sea. But it was entirely too
valuable a stone to attach to the cord and risk losing during the
fishing operations. Pursuing our study of aboriginal traits, we may, at
last, come to an understanding of the workings of the Indian mind, and
we may learn that the man placed greater faith in the potency of his
medicine, or of his charms, than he did in his actual implements made
use of in capturing game or defeating the enemy. Such things as these
plummets and other problematical forms served as charms, amulets, and
medicine-stones. But ruder things were made use of in the actual
workings necessary to achieve the desired results.

We have already seen (page 26) under which classification the Committee
places plummets. Plummets do not cover a wide range, and yet the plummet
form is doubtless an early development.

[Illustration:

FIG. 380. (S. 1–2.) Ornament and plummet. W. H. Foster collection,
Andover.
]

It was natural for man to select a bit of shell, oval in form, and
perforate it, and make of it a pendant just as he did in bright-colored
flat stones. It is quite likely that he next grooved a soft stone and
wore it as a plummet-shaped ornament. Becoming proficient in the working
of stone, he was able to groove harder materials and make of them the
plummets we find so frequently in some portions of America. I have not
attempted to subdivide plummets, although they may be long and slender,
short and thick, oval, flat on one side; or the body large, and the neck
somewhat lengthened. Plummets may also be grooved at either end, and
instead of being grooved may be perforated, as is seen in California
types.

It is well for readers and students alike to consult the large folder of
outlines (Fig. 292) which presents plummets as well as other forms.

The plummet may not only be plain, but also almost effigy-like in
character. Some of the sandstone plummets of the South, and of southern
Ohio as well, are decorated with incised lines as indicated in Fig. 360,
in which one is shown.

The New England plummets are of varying lengths, and the body may be
oval or almost globular. Occasionally, it is drawn to a point at the
base, as is observed in the central one, Fig. 377. There are also, in
this region, effigy-like plummets, and Fig. 414 shows one of these.

[Illustration:

FIG. 381. (S. 1–3.) Plummet-shaped stones from various sites in
Kentucky. Bennett H. Young’s collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

Fig. 380, Mr. William H. Foster’s collection, Andover, presents an
interesting stone plummet, one third size, and also a flat, grooved
slate object, in which distinct notches have been cut. Fig. 378, seven
plummets of varying dimensions and form, from northeastern Ohio, and
West Virginia, in the Andover collection. Fig. 382, a beautiful black
granite plummet from Dr. Charles F. Noe’s collection. This represents
the height of stone-age art in plummet-making. Fig. 383, ninety-five
plummets from the collection of the late Mr. J. B. Lewis, Petaluma,
California. Some of those hung on the lower row are perforated, some are
grooved and also perforated. Those on the six upper rows are not only
oval, but also slender, and yet

[Illustration:

FIG. 382. (S. 1–1.) From Section 21, Monroe Township, Johnson County,
Iowa. C. F. Noe’s collection, Amana, Iowa.
]

Regarding these numerous plummets and kindred shaped stones so common on
the Pacific Coast, not a little has been written, as reference to the
Bibliography will prove. Rev. H. C. Meredith[43] once wrote for me a
page concerning these strange objects. As it is concise and to the point
and as good as anything I have seen in print, I reproduce it here:

“The evidence seems to point to a variety of uses and not to one only.
The view most commonly held now, I believe, is that these objects are
‘medicine-stones’ or ‘charms,’ supposed to bring good luck and success
to their owners. Mr. J. G. Henderson, in an article published in the
_American Naturalist_, in 1872, appears to be the first to suggest this
use of the stones. Mr. H. W. Henshaw followed, in the American _Journal
of Archæology_, with an elaboration of this theory. Others have followed
with additional evidence in support of it. When a final conclusion is
reached, however, I think it will be to the effect that while these
stones were used as ‘charms,’ such use was not original and primary, but
secondary, perhaps only occasional and incidental.

[Illustration:

FIG. 383. (S. about 1–6.) California plummets and small mortars. J. B.
Lewis collection, Petaluma, Cal.
]

“Personally, I have no doubt that these stones were objects of utility
designed for several practical services in the economy of the
Californian aborigines. In the course of time, by a process of evolution
readily suggesting itself, a few of them, like the arrow and the pestle,
passed from the sphere of utility into that of veneration and ceremony.
Any one knowing the Indian character intimately will appreciate the ease
with which such a change could be wrought. I but lately witnessed an
illustration parallel. I was in attendance upon a ceremonial gathering
that continued through five days and nights. The native game called
‘hand-game’ or ‘guessing-game’ was played. Before the game began, I
bargained with a young Indian for his set of game-bones, to be delivered
at the close of the game. The bones had never been used. The play
continued for two days, and the team represented by this Indian won
everything the opposition could put up. The time of adjournment had not
been reached, but wishing to close my bargain, I offered the man the sum
agreed upon. This he refused, and with many and earnest words explained
that the bones were ‘good medicine’ and ‘lucky’; that he had never done
so well before. If he sold them he could never get such lucky ones
again, etc. After much talk he proposed to let me have them for twice
the sum agreed upon. I declined, though I really intended to take them.
I imagined I would lose nothing by delay. In the meantime a company of
Pah-Utes came in and joined the losers. A stake was raised and a new
game started, the Pah-Utes using their own songs and changing them often
for ‘luck.’ But after six hours they were wholly defeated, losing
everything to the same set of bones. After a while I hunted up my Indian
and reopened negotiations for the bones. After beating about the bush I
offered him his price. To my chagrin he refused the sum and would not
listen to any offer. I was given to understand that no Indian could sell
such lucky bones. I then called other Indians to my aid, men who had
refused me nothing I was willing to pay for, but they gravely repeated
the saying that the bones were ‘lucky’ and ‘good medicine’; that they
could never be replaced, and it was useless to talk about buying them.
Now any one can see how a few more successes with these bones would
place them in the sphere of veneration. Any one having them in his
possession would be considered an invincible player. Ultimately they
would pass from the sphere of utility into that of superstition and
become ‘charms.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 384. (S. 1–2.) Stone Rings. Collection of W. H. Thacker,
Arlington, Washington.
]

“So with the perforated stones I am considering. Suppose they were used
as net sinkers, or line sinkers, as there is reason to believe they
were, and remarkable catches of fish with that net or line would make
for the stones the reputation of being ‘lucky.’ Continued successes
would transfer them to the realm of veneration—they would become
‘charms.’ They need no longer be fastened to net or line. It would be
enough to hang them over the water or from the canoe. Suppose they were
used to twist bow-strings; and some were no doubt so used. Unusual
success with that bow would sooner or later change the twister into a
‘charm,’ and so on.

[Illustration:

FIG. 385. (S. 1–3 to 2–3.) Collection of B. H. Young, Louisville,
Kentucky.
]

“When a stone would be regarded as lucky, it would begin to receive at
the hands of the owner the finishing and polishing touches which at last
produced the rare specimen of elegant finish, sometimes, but not often,
found.”

The stone rings and circular stones (not discoidals) in which the
centres have been cut out and other curious forms, similar to those
shown in Figs. 384 and 385, have never been sufficiently studied. There
are a great many of these found in the United States, but not many in
one locality. There are little ornamented stone rings found in the
mounds of the Scioto Valley, Ohio. Also, from Tennessee graves. There
are large, clumsy rings from Arizona, New Mexico, and California. There
are rings which are apparently finger-rings, not only in stone but also
in shell and copper. I regret that I have not sufficient space to
consider these more in detail.

[Illustration:

FIG. 386. (S. 1–1.) Andover collection. To the left is a broken
problematical form made into an ornament, but it is to the two other
specimens that I would direct attention. This circular form of
ornament is rare. It is my theory that having made this type the
native enlarged the hole until but a rim remained. Thus developed
the finger-ring and the bracelet. Materials: sandstone and black
slate. Localities: Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.
]

The rings may be divided into two classes: those for ornamentation and
those for use in certain pursuits. Regarding the large rings found in
California and Arizona, several theories have been advanced, chief among
which are that they were weights for making more serviceable digging
implements; that they were put on clubs and used as defensive weapons.

Regarding the ornamental rings such as are shown in Fig. 385 from
Kentucky, these were finger-rings. Sometimes large ones are worn as
bracelets, but most bracelets were made of copper or shell.

The rings with concave sides such as Fig. 384 were probably made use of
in ceremonies concerning the nature of which we are ignorant.

CHAPTER XXIV
GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS

BICAVES, OR DISCOIDAL STONES, TUBES, ETC.

Some years ago, Dr. J. F. Snyder coined the term “bicave,” or “twice
hollowed,” as applying to these. He contended that the term “discoidal”
was meaningless. I have always adopted his new word, and those who have
not liked it have not offered convincing reasons for disregarding the
term. It is possible for Latin scholars to coin many concise words to
describe certain objects, and these words would convey precise meaning.
This is done in palæontology, geology, and all other branches of
science, and there is no reason why it should not be followed in
archæology. The arguments to the contrary savor of pedantry.

Dr. Snyder’s term does not fit any other stone object, although Mr.
McGuire, Professor Holmes, and others have all discussed these bicaves
under the term “discoidals.”

There are many flat, thin discs of both stone and clay found throughout
the United States. These could not be called bicaves, because they are
not twice hollowed. But they mark the beginning of that form.

Of these discs, especially numerous in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio and
along the Ohio River, there are three kinds: simple discs, discs with
slightly depressed centres, and ornamented discs. The bicaves themselves
are alike in outline, having depressed centres. But there are great
differences in the depressions.

In the centre of Fig. 388 is a large disc of black slate around which is
a well-defined rim. This form is rare. To the right of this specimen is
a large quartzite bicave with a more extended rim. In Fig. 389 are four
typical quartz and quartzite bicaves of general type.

Certain specimens in Figs. 389 and 391 have a second small but prominent
depression exactly in the centre. Usually about this depression is a
little rim.

Fig. 392 is a photogravure plate from the collection of Mr. F. P. Graves
of Doe Run, Missouri.

Here we have all of the discs and bicaves present. In the lower row is a
large polished disc with flat base, which is not concave on either side.
To the left of it, one in which the concavity is slightly marked. The
others range from this type to those that are perforated through the
centre. In Fig. 390, Colonel Young’s collection, there is a bicave of
unusual form, being high instead of broad, with slight concavities, yet
having the central depression clearly indicated. These have been called
“chunky” stones by those who have written regarding the famous Southern
game played by various Indians in the South and which has been described
so frequently that I dismiss it with the statement that round discs
similar to those illustrated in this chapter were rolled along the
ground and a spear or lance shot after them, and the stone when it fell
over on the side was supposed to be transfixed by one of these
projectiles. Or, the nearness of a projectile to the hole in the stone
counted in various ways. There is an early historical reference to this
game cited in the Conclusions, Volume II.

[Illustration:

FIG. 387. (S. 1–4.) This series of fourteen circular stones, with
depressed centres, and most of them perforated, is from the Andover
collection. They represent the smaller bicave or discoidal stones.
All of them are fine and interesting specimens. Materials:
sandstone, clay, and granite. Localities: Kentucky, Tennessee,
Indiana, and Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 388. (S. 1–4.) Discoidal stones from Kentucky; valley of the
Cumberland River. The central one is of slate. B. H. Young’s
collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

Discoidals may be common, circular discs with flat polished sides, or
circular with concave sides and perforated through the centre, or with
the centre rimmed out, as certain specimens in Fig. 387. In this figure
all are bicaves save three. That all of these small ones were used in
playing chunky games I do not believe. They may have served as
gaming-stones in other events. Some of the ruder ones, of the small
stones I mean, may have been spindle-whorls.

[Illustration:

FIG. 389. (S. 1–3.) Phillips Academy collection. Locality: Tennessee.
Material: quartz and quartzite.
]

Fig. 389 shows four beautiful specimens from Tennessee, Andover
collection. These are not merely depressed in the centre, but have a
high, fluted rim, the centre being cut out, and the surfaces on the
inside of the rim either sloping toward a second depression in the
centre, or made flat. All are highly polished, and of Tennessee marble
or quartz. The colors vary from rich brown to spotted, with yellow
predominating. Fig. 388, from Colonel Young’s magnificent collection,
illustrates nine bicaves of various sizes and materials—the black slate
one in the centre, flanked by those of beautifully mottled quartz on
either side, and one of pure white quartz to the right of the centre.

Fig. 391 is a remarkable object with a slightly depressed top, and with
the central depression plainly marked. Around this central depression is
a rim.

In the “Handbook of American Indians,” page 391, Mr. Fowke has described
the bicaves, and his description I here quote, as it is the best
published up to this time:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 390. (S. 1–2.) Barrel-shaped bicave. Hard, light-colored
material. B. H. Young’s collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 391. (S. 1–2.) Quartzite bicave found on sandy bank of Hightower
River, Cherokee County, Georgia. Weight, 37 ounces. Translucent
between the depressions. Pink by reflected light and pink by
transmitted light. It has a perfect secondary depression, and is
highly polished and perfect. H. M. Whelpley’s collection, St. Louis,
Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 392. (_S. 1–4._)

_Various types of bicaves, etc. Localities: Missouri, Illinois,
Tennessee. F. P. Graves’s collection. Doe Run, Missouri._
]

“Prehistoric objects of unknown use whose most typical form is that of a
double-convex or double-concave lens. The perimeter is a circle and the
sides range from considerably convex through plane to deeply concave.
The diameter varies from 1 in. to 8 in., the thickness from one fourth
of an inch to 6 inches, very rarely passing these limits; the two
dimensions have no definite relation to each other. Some specimens are
convex on one face and plane on the other; but when one face is concave
the other is also. Of the latter form many have a secondary depression
at the centre; others have a perforation which is sometimes enlarged
until the disc becomes a ring. They are made principally of very hard
rock, as quartz, flint, jasper, novaculite, quartzite, porphyry,
syenite, and the like, though stone as soft as marble, sandstone,
barite, and even steatite was sometimes chosen. No type of relics is
more difficult to classify than these discs. The name first given them,
and by which they are still commonly known, is ‘chunky stones,’ from the
native name of the game played with analogous discs by Southern Indians.
But the description of the game, considered in connection with the great
variation in size and material of the specimens, shows that only a small
percentage of them could have been thus utilized. Culin believes that a
limited number may be definitely regarded as ‘chunky stones.’ He
recognizes three types: (1) perforated (least common); (2) symmetrical,
unperforated; (3) asymmetrical, unperforated. A similar diversity is
observed in the stones used in the analogous Hawaiian game of
_maika_.[44] From the smooth, symmetrical, highly polished ‘chunky’
stone they merge by insensible gradations into mullers, pestles,
mortars, pitted stones, polishing- and grinding-stones, hammers,
sinkers, club-heads, and ornaments, for all of which purposes except the
last they may have been used in some of their stages, so that no
dividing-line is possible. They present various styles and degrees of
finish. Many retain their natural surface on both sides with the edge
worked off by grinding or pecking, the latter marks possibly resulting
from use as hammers. The sides may be ground down while the edge remains
untouched; or, when made from a thick pebble, the sides may be pecked
and the edge ground. Some specimens which are entirely unworked require
very close examination to distinguish them from others whose whole
surface has been artificially produced. It is possible, however, to
arrange a large number of specimens from one locality in a regular
series from a roughly chipped disc to a finished product of the highest
polish and symmetry. The finest specimens, in greatest numbers, come
from the states south of the Ohio River, and from Arkansas eastward to
the Atlantic. The territory within a radius of one hundred miles around
Chattanooga, Tennessee, and for about the same distance around Memphis,
is especially rich in them. From southeastern Ohio to central Missouri
considerable numbers have been found, though few of them are as well
wrought as those from the South. Rather rough ones occur along the
Delaware River. Beyond the limits indicated, the type practically
disappears. Discoidal stones corresponding closely with Eastern types,
save that the faces are rarely concave, are found in the Pueblo country
and in the Pacific States.”

The remarkable stone disc, engraved and presented in Fig. 393, was found
near a mound eight miles from Arkansas Post, Arkansas. Mr. H. L.
Stoddard secured this specimen and permitted me to make illustrations
from the photographs. There were also found two effigy pipes which are
shown in Fig. 491.

These stone discs were found in considerable numbers by Mr. Clarence B.
Moore at Moundville, Black Warrior River, Alabama. He figures several of
them in “Certain Aboriginal Remains on the Black Warrior River”
(Philadelphia, 1905).

The culture at Moundville was high as is evinced by the character of the
objects found by Mr. Moore. These discs were more or less thickly
smeared with paint, cream color or red.

Mr. Moore states: “The universal presence of paint upon these discs and
slabs seems to offer a clue to the purpose for which they were used,
and, until a better suggestion is offered, we shall consider them
palettes for the mixing of paint.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 393. (S. 1–3.) Engraved discs from Arkansas Post, Arkansas. H. L.
Stoddard’s collection.
]

As ordinary slabs serve just as well as stones on which to mix paint, it
is my opinion that these highly ornamented stones, if used for this
purpose, were employed by the shamans in painting the warriors for
certain ceremonies.

But the discs owned by Mr. Stoddard have not smooth centres as have Mr.
Moore’s discs, and are apparently for other purposes than the mixing of
paint.

TUBULAR FORMS

Not only are there tubular pipes, but there are also tubular forms which
apparently are not pipes. I show numbers of these in Figs. 394 and 398.
Fig. 394 illustrates a number of steatite beads from the collection of
H. K. Deisher, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.

Cylindrical forms may be said to begin with the beads and end with the
long tubular objects, which are really pipes.

[Illustration:

FIG. 393 _A_ (S. 1–3.) Engraved discs from Arkansas Post, Arkansas. H.
L. Stoddard’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 394. (S. 1–1.) H. K. Deisher’s collection, Kutztown,
Pennsylvania.
]

Various uses have been assigned these and I have commented in so many of
my writings on tubes, that one would tell an old story to repeat all
that has been said. It suffices to say, that passing from the bead class
to larger objects, the size of marbles, these may have been worn as
stone beads. But these stone objects are usually made of banded slate.
They may be oval in outline, such as Fig. 395, or long and slender, as
Fig. 396. Again, some are grooved, others flattened, others rounded, and
yet some are square.

[Illustration:

FIG. 395. (S. 1–3.) Collection of H. K. Deisher, Kutztown,
Pennsylvania. Material: red granite.
]

In Fig. 396 are seven from the Andover collection. In the lower
left-hand corner is the short, small tube or large bead, with a curious
depression, the purpose of which is unknown. In Mr. Deisher’s specimen,
Fig. 395, the depression is longer and the groove extends from end to
end.

In the upper left-hand corner of Fig. 396 is a tube with a broad,
shallow groove, and concave sides.

Sometimes there are specimens found here and there in the country which
seem to be more pipe-like than tube-like in character. I present one of
these in Fig. 397, from the collection of Mr. G. P. Chandler, Knoxville,
Tennessee.

This specimen is of fine sandstone. The drilling makes it appear as an
hour-glass. It was impossible to photograph the openings in this
specimen, there being no contrast, and therefore it is drawn. One of the
openings is about one fourth of an inch larger than the other. There is
a band about the centre of the stone. Mr. Chandler kindly presented the
specimen to me for our Andover collection.

In Fig. 398, I present three large tube-like stones—perhaps pipes. This
form, called by some of the early writers, “telescope,” is fairly common
throughout the South. What they were used for, no one knows. I think the
general explanation that they were shamans’ charms used in incantations,
whereby the evil spirit was drawn from the bodies of the sick, is as
good as any. We know that bone and wooden tubes were used for such
purposes in historic times and these may have been also made use of in
prehistoric times.

[Illustration:

FIG. 396. (S. 2–3.) Phillips Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 397. (S. 2–3.) Phillips Academy collection. Drawn by George P.
Chandler, Knoxville, Tennessee.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 398. (S. 1–2.) Stone tubes. The two upper specimens are of
steatite, and the lower one is of hard clay stone. B. H. Young’s
collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

-----

Footnote 1:

Bureau of American Ethnology, _Bulletin_ no. 30, pt. 1, Washington, D.
C.

Footnote 2:

Pages 16 to 22.

Footnote 3:

See Boas, in 6th _Report_, Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 399–669
(1884); Murdoch, in 9th _Report_, Bureau of American Ethnology, pp.
133–617 (1887); and _Report_ of the National Museum for 1884, pp.
307–316.

Footnote 4:

_American Anthropologist_, vol. IV, no. 1, p. 108.

Footnote 5:

For further account of these implements, see the article by the writer
in _American Naturalist_, vol. XV, p. 425.

Footnote 6:

See vol. I, Fig. 64 (p. 185), and plate XIV, Fig. 1.

Footnote 7:

Roland B. Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_ (Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History, 1905, vol. XVII, Fig. 5, p. 135).

Footnote 8:

See 17th _Annual Report_, Bureau of American Ethnology.

Footnote 9:

_Relation_, pp. 75, 78; New York, 1871.

Footnote 10:

“Some of the South American natives cut the lobes of their ears, and
for a considerable time fastened small weights to them, in order to
lengthen them; that others cut holes in their upper and under lips;
through the cartilage of the nose, their chins and jaws, and either
hung or thrust through them, such things as they most fancied, which
also agrees with the ancient customs of our Northern Indians.”
_History of the American Indians_, p. 213; London, 1775.

Footnote 11:

“En d’autres endroits de l’Amérique, quelques Nations se percent le
nez, entre les deux narines, d’où ils font dépendre quelques joli
vetez; ... et d’autres sur leurs lèvres pendantes et renversées, et
tout cela pour contenter leurs yeux, et pour trouver le point de la
beauté.” _Jesuit Relation_, 1658, p. 30.

Footnote 12:

“Leurs narines ne sont jamais percées, et il n’y a que parmi quelques
Nations, qu’elles se percent les oreilles.” Charlevoix, VI, p. 43. As
to the existence of these customs, cf. Lafitau, III, p. 53; Sagard, p.
135; Carver, p. 227; Loskiel, p. 49; Marquette, p. 48; Iberville, p.
72; in _Hist. Coll. Louisiana_, 1875; Adair, p. 171.

Footnote 13:

_Mémoire sur les Mœurs, Coustumes et Religion des Sauvages de
l’Amérique Septentrionale_, p. 30; Leipzig et Paris, 1864.

Footnote 14:

Lafitau, III, p. 53; Adair, p. 171.

Footnote 15:

Compare _Jesuit Relations_, 1658, p. 30; Adair, p. 171; Carver, p.
277; Loskiel, _Indians of North America_, p. 49; Lafitau, III, p. 49;
Bartram, p. 499.

Footnote 16:

Adair, _North American Indians_, p. 171; London, 1775.

Footnote 17:

Heckwelder, _Indian Nations_, p. 207; Philadelphia, 1876.

Footnote 18:

_Voyage des Hurons_, I, p. 135; Paris, 1865. Radisson, _Voyages_, in
Prince Society Publications, pp. 146, 226.

Footnote 19:

Loskiel, p. 49; London, 1794.

Footnote 20:

Carver, _Travels_, p. 227; London, 1778.

Footnote 21:

Adair, p. 171. Among the articles traded to the Indians at different
times, mention is made of nose crosses.

Footnote 22:

Lafitau, III, pp. 49, 53; Charlevoix, VI, p. 43; Sagard, p. 133.

Footnote 23:

Wood, _New England’s Prospect_, p. 74, Prince Society Publications;
_Plaine Dealing, or Newes from New England_, in Collections of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, p. 103; Father Rasle, in Kip,
_Jesuit Missions_, p. 38.

Footnote 24:

Loskiel, _Indians of North America_, pp. 49, 52; Beverly, _Virginie_,
plate II; _First Voyage to America_, in Hakluyt, II, p. 286;
Edinburgh, 1889.

Footnote 25:

Lawson, _Carolina_, p. 193.

Footnote 26:

Lafitau, III, pp. 49, 50; Brereton, p. 90, in vol. VIII of Third
Series, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections; Adair, p. 171;
Radisson, _Voyages_, _loc. cit._, p. 146; Verrazzano, _loc. cit._, p.
401; _First Voyage to America_, in Hakluyt, II, p. 286; Edinburgh,
1889.

Footnote 27:

De Bry, _Brevis Narratio_, quoted in _Antiquities of the Southern
Indians_, p. 521; New York, 1873.

Footnote 28:

Du Pratz, _Louisiane_, II, p. 195.

Footnote 29:

_Historie of Travaile into Virginia_, pp. 57, 67. Compare Captain
Smith, _Virginia_, p. 130; Hariot, plates III, IV, VII; London, 1893;
_Brevis Narratio_, in De Bry, plate XIV; Geo. Percy, in _Purchas’
Pilgrims_, IV, p. 1687.

Footnote 30:

_Jesuit Relations_, 1633, p. 35; Megapolensis, _loc. cit._, p. 154;
Cartier, in _Early English Voyages to America_, II, p. 43;
Laudonnière, in same, p. 413; Champlain, I, p. 380; Lafitau, I, p.
201.

Footnote 31:

Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 26; Edinburgh, 1887. “They differ from each
other in the mode of dressing their heads, each following the custom
of the nation or band to which they belong, and adhering to the form
made use of by their ancestors from time immemorial.” Carver,
_Travels_, p. 229. Cf. Miss Fletcher, _Journal of American Folk-Lore_,
vol. I, no. 11, pp. 116, _et seq._, for modes of cutting hair among
Omahas; and Hariot, plate XI, for statement as to medicine-man. See
Captain Smith, p. 139, for an account of the snake-skin head-dress of
the chief Priest.

Footnote 32:

Lafitau, III, p. 50. Cf. Adair, p. 8, for same custom among Southern
tribes.

Footnote 33:

Strachey, _loc. cit._, p. 67. Cf. _First Voyage_, in Hakluyt, II, pp.
286 _et seq._, for account of copper pendants, sometimes five or six
in either ear, and red pieces of copper on the head.

Footnote 34:

Charlevoix, VI, p. 42.

Footnote 35:

Du Pratz, II, p. 197.

Footnote 36:

Hariot, plates IV, VI, and VII.

Footnote 37:

“A quantity of pearls amounting to six or seven arrobes.” Biedma, in
Historical Collections of Louisiana, part II, p. 101. “In her eares
bracelets of pearls hanging down to her middle.” _Voyages of English
Nation to America_, in Hakluyt, II, p. 286. In same, p. 304, it is
said, “not only his own skinnes that hee weareth, and the better sort
of his gentlemen and followers are full set with the sayd Pearle, but
also his beds, and houses are garnished with them, and that hee hath
such quantitie of them, that it is a wonder to see.” “Bracelets of
real pearls; but they pierce them when hot and thus spoil them.”
Membré, _loc. cit._, p. 183. Cf. Shea, _Early Voyages_, p. 86, and in
same, p. 140, Father Gravier says, “the chief’s wife had some small
pearls ... but about seven or eight which are as large as small peas.”
Cf. Captain Smith, _loc. cit._, pp. 138, 144, 191, etc.; Strachey, pp.
54, 132; Tonti, _loc. cit._, p. 62.

Footnote 38:

_Knight of Elvas_, _loc. cit._, p. 144. Cf. Garcilaso de la Vega, I,
pp. 424, 434; and in vol. II, pp. 5 _et seq._, there is an account of
the way in which the Indians extracted pearls from shells; Paris,
1670.

Footnote 39:

_First Voyage_, in Hakluyt, II, pp. 286, 334; Edinburgh, 1889.

Footnote 40:

“De tout ce que je vient de dire de la manière de s’orner, on conclura
aisément, que les Sauvages, au lieu d’ajouter à leur beauté naturelle,
(car ils sont presque tous bien faits,) travaillent à se rendre laids
& à se défigurer. Cela est vrai aussi; cependant quand ils sont bien
parez à leur mode, l’assemblage bizarre de tous leurs ornemens, non
seulement n’a rien qui choque, mais il a un je ne sçai quoi qui plaît,
& leur donne de la bonne grace.” Lafitau, _Mœurs des Sauvages
Amériquains_, tome III, p. 57; Paris, 1724.

Footnote 41:

October, 1902, p. 15.

Footnote 42:

University of Pennsylvania, Bulletin Series, 1901.

Footnote 43:

_Prehistoric Implements_, p. 280.

Footnote 44:

24th _Report_ of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1906.

=The Riverside Press=
CAMBRIDGE · MASSACHUSETTS
U · S · A

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Page Changed from Changed to

197 point, and it was doubtless used point, and it was doubtless used
as a hand-hatchet, mounted as is as a hand-hatchet, mounted as in
Fig. 176. Fig. 176.

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA, VOL. 1 OF 2 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.