The stone age in North America, vol. II

By Warren K. Moorehead

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

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. II

Author: Warren K. Moorehead

Release date: September 7, 2024 [eBook #74390]

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. II ***

THE STONE AGE IN
NORTH AMERICA

[Illustration:

FIG. 223. (_S. 1–1._)

_Two grooved effigies and two celts, from the Bahama Islands, West
Indies. Reproduced in natural colors. 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. II

[Illustration: [Logo]]

BOSTON AND NEW YORK

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

=The Riverside Press Cambridge=

1910

_Published December 1910_

CONTENTS

XXV. GROUND STONE 1
Effigies in stone and wood—bird-stones 1
Animal and human effigies 20

XXVI. GROUND STONE 29
Stone pipes 29
The classification of pipes 32

XXVII. GROUND STONE 95
Mortars and pestles 95

XXVIII. OBJECTS OF SHELL 117

XXIX. OBJECTS OF BONE 134
Mandan bone implements 149

XXX. OBJECTS OF COPPER 161
The native copper implements of Wisconsin 161
Fabrication 172
Distribution 174
Classes and functions 178
Axes 180
Chisels 184
Spuds 186
Gouges 188
Adzes 189
Spatulas 192
Knives 196
Arrow- and spear-points 198
Harpoon-points 214
Pikes and punches 216
Awls and drills 219
Spikes 220
Needles 221
Fish-hooks—peculiar implements 222
Banner-stones—beads 224
Bangles 225
Finger-rings—ear-rings 226
Ear-spools or ear-plugs—gorgets and pendants 227
Crescents 228
Other ornaments 230

XXXI. TEXTILE FABRICS 235

XXXII. POTTERY OF THE UNITED STATES 247

XXXIII. HEMATITE OBJECTS 295

XXXIV. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS 308

XXXV. THE STONE AGE IN EASTERN CANADA, UTAH, AND DAKOTA 330
Eastern Canada 330
The Plains of western and central Canada 333
The stone age in Utah 336
Objects made of wood 336
Textiles; feather objects; bone objects 337
Objects made from teeth; shell objects; stone objects;
pottery objects 338
The stone age in Dakota 339
Hide and bark 339
Objects made from deer antlers; bone objects; shell
objects 340
Stone objects 341
Objects of copper; of pottery; of unbaked clay 342

XXXVI. CONCLUSIONS 344
The population in prehistoric times 344
The stone age in historic times 348
The antiquity of man in America 350
Adaptation to conditions 354
Art in ancient times and modern art 355

XXXVII. CONCLUSIONS 357
The ancient culture-groups 357
The stone-age point of view 363
Field study needed 365

BIBLIOGRAPHY 369

INDEX 411

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA

CHAPTER XXV
GROUND STONE

EFFIGIES IN STONE AND WOOD—BIRD-STONES

Aboriginal man traced all sorts of figures on the rocks and occasionally
on the surfaces of flat ornaments and ceremonials. Not only did he make
pictures on shell gorgets and on birch bark, but he also carved complete
figures.

I have not made a special chapter for pictographs and picture writings,
but have dismissed them from this work, save with here and there a
reference. However, they represent stone-age pictorial art. Dr. Fewkes,
Mr. Cushing, Dr. Garrick Mallory and others have given us numerous
papers on picture writings, pictographs, painted and sculptured symbols.
Garrick Mallory’s report on the sign language among the American Indians
was published in the Eleventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology
and covers four hundred pages. This treats extensively of picture
writings and pictographs. He portrayed the attempts of stone-age man at
expressing his thoughts. He had not arrived at a written language save
in Mexico and Central America. In North America he was in the advanced
stone age. But he was very skillful in his pictographs and in his
carvings of human, animal, bird, reptile, and fish figures. It has
occurred to me that he first made rude scratches on flat surfaces, on
wigwam sides, on trees, on rocks near trails.

[Illustration:

FIG. 399. (S. 2–3.) Unfinished bird-stones. Localities: Ohio, Indiana,
Michigan. Phillips Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 400. (S. 1–1.) Unfinished bird-stone. Collection of Emily
Fletcher, Westford, Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 401. (S. 2–3.) Unfinished bird-stone. Phillips Academy
collection.
]

It is significant that the Plains tribes and all the natives who did not
construct mounds or earthworks, natives that had not reached the stage
of barbarism but were still savages, made no effigies of consequence.
The effigies carved in catlinite, and observed among tribes west of the
Mississippi during the historic period, seem to have been inspired by a
knowledge of the superior arts of the white people. We find that while
the roving tribes of the Plains painted various battle and hunting
scenes on their tents and shields, yet they were inferior in art as
compared with the Pueblo, the Cliff-Dweller, or the Mound-Building
peoples. It is also significant, and I shall speak of it at greater
length in my Conclusions, that the native American was so little
influenced in his art by some life-forms. I have never seen an effigy of
a mountain, a tree, a plant, or a flower. The modern Ojibwa Indians
design flowers in their bead-work. The ancient Ojibwa did not. The
native American did not seem to have been impressed by plant-life or
inanimate objects. Occasionally, he scratched a trail or a tipi on an
ornament, and some of the pictographs in various portions of the United
States show wigwams, trails, etc. But while there are numerous examples
of carvings in stone, shell, and bone of animals, birds, fish, and
reptile life, we search in vain for carvings of the other things I have
mentioned. The highest art is found where the largest villages, or the
most numerous mounds or cliff-houses, were located. In small mound
groups, or areas where the population was not sedentary, the art is very
crude. Throughout the areas where the culture is highest, notably
Alabama, Georgia, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and
Illinois, we find these large mound groups referred to, all of which
proves that the people lived long enough in one place to develop an art.

[Illustration:

FIG. 402. (S. 1–1.) Central Ontario, Canada. Provincial Museum
collection.
]

This art we see in the carved effigies. To study them in detail requires
more space than is available in this volume. The Nomenclature Committee
placed all effigies under one head—“Resemblances to known forms.” Under
that general head I have placed:

I. The bird-stone in its various forms.

(A) Plain bird-stones.

(B) With ears or eyes, or with expanding wings.

II. Effigies in stone other than pipes.

III. Human effigies in stone and wood, including idols.

The classification made is rendered difficult because there are effigies
in bone, shell, clay, and stone, not to omit copper. Such effigies as
were drilled and used as pipes are described under the chapter devoted
to pipes. The bone effigies are included in the chapter devoted to shell
and bone, while copper is separately treated. Yet there remains, after
treating more or less completely of these various divisions, a large
class of stone objects which are not pipes, or tools, or dishes, and
which I have thought best to include by themselves. The largest division
in effigies is the so-called bird- or saddle-stone which is found
between the following lines: Davenport, Iowa, to central Minnesota, east
to New Brunswick, south to the Atlantic Coast, and thence south down the
coast to Washington, thence west to Davenport. Few bird-stones occur
south of Kentucky, west of Davenport, or north of St. Paul. The other
effigies are of multitudinous kinds and are widely scattered throughout
the United States.

[Illustration:

FIG. 403. (S. 1–1 and 1–2.) These three problematical forms are from
the Provincial Museum collection, Ontario, Canada. The upper one is
from central Ontario. The base view of the lower specimen is also
shown.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 404. (S. 1–2.) Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 405. (S. 1–4.) W. A. Holmes’s collection, Chicago.
]

Figs. 399, 400, 401, and the central object in Fig. 269 are all
unfinished bird-stones. It was difficult for me to procure these, but
after some years of correspondence they were obtained.

The specimens clearly show the work of the hand-hammer. Fig. 401 and the
upper right-hand specimen in Fig. 399 have been pecked into shape and
the grinding-polishing process was well under way when the specimen was
set aside, or lost.

[Illustration:

FIG. 406. (S. about 1–3.) Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
]

In collecting numbers of these unfinished bird-stones, my object was to
prove that these slender, delicate objects did not indicate European
knowledge or influence, but were wrought after much labor from ordinary
stone by prehistoric man. None of them show the marks of steel
cutting-tools. Fig. 400 is the roughest one and yet the ears or eyes
stand out in relief. Fig. 399 is interesting in that it shows three on
which the result of pecking and battering is in evidence. The one to the
left, lower row, has been pecked, and ground, and was in process of
being polished when the work ceased.

[Illustration:

FIG. 407. (S. 1–2.) Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
]

Fig. 401, Andover collection, found in Ohio, is a large bird-stone about
five inches in length. The marks of the flint cutting-tool or of the
hard grained rubbing-stone, which cut the softer surface of the slate,
are still apparent. Fig. 404 presents various bird-stones, both rare and
common forms, with and without ears. These are found long and slender,
short and thick, almost as low as the bar-amulet, and also so high that
they merge into other effigies. Six bird-stones from the collection of
Mr. Leslie W. Hills of Fort Wayne, Indiana, are shown in Fig. 407.

[Illustration:

FIG. 408. (S. 3–5.) “This specimen is from western New York. It is
made in the form of a bird which from the number of similar
specimens have given the name to this class. The eyes are
represented by great protuberances, which must have greatly
increased the difficulty of manufacture. It is made from a boulder
or large piece, and while the material is hard, it is not rough but
rather fragile. It could not be chipped like flint nor whittled like
soapstone, but must have been hammered or pecked into shape and
afterwards ground to its present form, then polished until it is as
smooth as glass. A consideration of the conditions demonstrates the
difficulty of making this object and the dexterity and the
experienced working required.”[1] Material: diorite with feldspar
crystals. Smithsonian collection. Otis M. Bigelow’s collection,
Baldwinsville.
]

The bird-stones with projection on either side, which by some are called
ears, and by others eyes, are quite frequently found in the eastern
United States, and Canada. An unusual one is illustrated in Fig. 402,
this having one button-shaped knob on the top of the head. Figs. 406 and
409 from the collection of Mr. Hills illustrate bird-stones about one
third size, from various portions of Indiana, Ohio, and Canada; an
unfinished one in Fig. 409 (number on its side 561) is interesting in
that the bill or nose is unusually long, the head high, and the body
quite short. One beautiful specimen owned by Mr. George Little of Xenia,
Ohio, is illustrated in Fig. 410, and the specimen is turned in Fig. 411
so that the perforations are visible. The neck of this is unusually
long. It will be observed that all of these bird-stones have flat bases;
none of the bases are round.

In Figs. 404 to 411 are presented bird-stones, Class I, divisions A and
B. Naturally, there are more of plain bird-stones (A) than those with
large projecting ears, or elaborate heads. It will be observed that the
width of the tail varies, being long and narrow in some, short and
slightly flaring in others, and in still others broad, or fan-shaped.
Sometimes the eye is very small, as in the lower left-hand specimen,
Fig. 405. Or it may be sunken, several of which are shown in Fig. 409.
But usually it is worked in high relief.

There are presented, all told, in this chapter, sixty bird-stones. It
would be possible for me to present ten times this number. There are
included in the series numbers of effigy-like objects that might not be
classed by other observers as bird-stones. For instance, the central
specimen, top row, of Fig. 405.

The bird-stones are very interesting and unique objects and the range in
them is considerable. Sometimes they are almost square, as is seen in
the central specimen, lower row, Fig. 405. Again, the head is a
prominent feature, as is observed in the lower one in Fig. 409, and the
body is of secondary consideration. A group of these stones from the
Andover collection is shown in Fig. 404. The very small bird-stone in
the upper row to the left is half size of the original, as are the
others. This is the smallest bird-stone, the genuineness of which is
beyond question, brought to my attention. Just below it is a peculiarly
straight effigy from Tennessee, which is almost bar-amulet in shape, and
marks the merging of the bird-stone into the bar-amulet. Fig. 408 is an
expanded-wing type of unusual beauty. Fig. 405, from the collection of
W. A. Holmes, Chicago, shows typical bird-stones, with an unusual one,
almost like a frog, and shown in the centre at the top. Next to it to
the left is a short stone, hardly bird-like in character, of which a few
have been found in the United States. Fig. 403, from the collection in
the Provincial Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, presents at the top a
stone as much bar-amulet as bird in character, and also a stone at the
bottom in the centre of which is worked a projection or knob.

Fig. 412, from the Reverend William Beauchamp’s collection, is somewhat
different from ordinary bird-stones, although it is included under that
class. In 1899 I issued a bulletin, “The Bird-Stone Ceremonial,” which
is now out of print. It illustrated fifty-three bird-stones. Since that
time Mr. Charles E. Brown has published a study of bird-stones.[2] This
is an excellent review.

Dr. Thomas Wilson once made a statement[3] concerning bird-stones, and I
quote one of his paragraphs: “The United States National Museum
possesses many of these specimens. While they bear a greater resemblance
to birds than anything else, yet scarcely any two of them are alike and
they change in form through the whole gamut until it is difficult to
determine whether it is a bird, a lizard, or a turtle, and finally the
series ends in a straight bar without pretense of presenting any
animal.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 409. (S. about 1–3.) Collection of Mr. Leslie W. Hills, Fort
Wayne, Indiana.
]

The range of material is from Huronian slate or shale to red sandstone,
granite, and porphyry. Usually the stone from which they are made is
banded or contains spots of color. They are either red, gray, or brown,
with variations. Sometimes feldspathic granite, diorite, and
porphyritic-feldspar are made use of. Dr. William Beauchamp gives a very
good description of some fifteen bird-stones.[4] I have reproduced none
of the illustrations he gives, but as his text is timely, I quote at
length from his paper:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 410. (S. 1–1.) Collection of George Little, Xenia, Ohio.
]

“The theories about their use seem fanciful, as some certainly are. Two
writers assert that they were worn by married or pregnant women only,
and many have accepted this statement. Others think they were worn by
conjurors, or fixed on the prows of canoes. It is enough to say that
some of the perforations are not adapted to any of these uses. It seems
better to class them with the war and prey or hunting gods of the Zuñis,
some of which they resemble. In that case the holes, of whatever kind,
would have given a firm hold on the thongs which bound the arrows to the
amulet, a matter of importance in an irregular figure.

“These perforations form the most important feature. The amulet may be
but a simple bar, but to each end of the base is a sloping hole, bored
from the end and base and meeting. To this necessary feature may be
added a simple head or tail, and there may also be projecting ears. None
of these are essential. They are but appropriate or tasteful
accessories.

“Two notable collections contain a large number of amulets. In the
Canadian collection at Toronto there are about fifty bird-amulets.”

Dr. Beauchamp mentions Mr. Douglass’s seventy specimens in the American
Museum of Natural History collection, and also refers to the rarity of
bar-amulets in Western New York:—

“They were variable in material as well as form, although most commonly
made of striped slate. Perhaps full half have projecting ears, when of
the bird-form. In the wider forms, usually of harder materials, there
are often cross-bars on the under side, in which the perforations are
made. Occasionally these are not entirely enclosed, yet are without
signs of breakage. This seems to prove that these were not intended as
means of attaching them to any larger object, on which they would rest,
but rather for fastening articles upon them, as in the Zuñi amulets
already mentioned, and which were illustrated by Mr. Frank H. Cushing,
in the Second Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. On comparison a general
resemblance to these will be seen, and in a few cases it is quite
striking. That they were used in this way, rather than in those
suggested by others, is a reasonable conclusion which gains strength
with fuller study. As a class they belong to the St. Lawrence basin.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 411. (S. 1–1.) Side view of Fig. 410.
]

Mr. Gerard Fowke and Professor David Boyle should be quoted upon this
subject. Mr. Fowke says:[5]

[Illustration:

FIG. 412. (S. 1–1.) Rev. William Beauchamp’s collection. From
Michigan.
]

“Stone relics of bird-form are quite common north of the Ohio River, but
are exceedingly rare south of that stream. [He illustrates the same
specimen figured by Dr. Wilson.]

“According to Gilman,[6] the bird-shape stones were worn on the head by
the Indian women, but only after marriage. Abbott quotes Colonel
Whittlesey to the effect that they were worn by Indian women to denote
pregnancy, and from William Penn that when the squaws were ready to
marry they wore something on their heads to indicate the fact.

[Illustration:

FIG. 413. (S. 1–4.) Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
]

“Jones[7] quotes from De Bry that the conjurors among the Virginia
Indians wore a small black bird above one of their ears as a badge of
office.”

Professor Boyle[8] says: “Although for convenience known as
bird-amulets—most of them being apparently highly conventionalized
bird-forms—now and again one sees specimens that are not suggestive of
birds, whatever else they may have been intended to symbolize. In some
instances there has not been any attempt to imitate eyes even by means
of a depression, but in the majority of cases the eyes are enormously
exaggerated, and stand out like buttons on a short stalk, fully half an
inch beyond the side of the head. In every finished specimen the hole is
bored diagonally through the middle of each end of the base, upwards and
downwards. If merely for suspension when being carried, one hole would
be sufficient, but the probability is that these were intended for
fastening the ‘amulets’ to some other object, but what, or for what
purpose, is not known.

“It has been suggested that these articles ... were employed in playing
a game; that they are totems of tribes or clans; and that they were
talismans in some way connected with the hunt for waterfowl. They are,
at all events, among the most curious and highly finished specimens of
Indian handicraft in stone found in this part of America, and the
collection of them in the Provincial Archæological Museum is said to be
the best that has been made.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 414. (S. 3–8.) Effigy of a whale. Andover collection. This stone
was found near Fall River, Massachusetts. It appears to be an effigy
of a whale. Numbers of rude effigies, more or less whale-like in
character, are found along the Atlantic seaboard in Connecticut and
Massachusetts. Doubtless the whale would excite wonder in the minds
of aborigines—hence the effigies.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 415. (S. 1–2.) Bear effigy. Found near the corner of Essex and
Boston Streets, Salem, Massachusetts, in 1830.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 416. (S. 1–3.) Group of various objects from ruins near Phœnix,
Arizona. Phillips Academy collection.
]

Professor Boyle speaks of the bar-amulet after treating of bird-stones,
but he does not class them as the same kind of ceremonials.

Frank Hamilton Cushing illustrated bird-stones and flat tablets, and he
thought the bird-stones were tied on flat tablets and these worn on the
head. I inclined to that opinion when I published “The Bird-Stone
Ceremonial,” but now I do not believe this, for the reason that most
bird-stones could not be conveniently tied to flat tablets.

[Illustration:

FIG. 417. (S. 1–1.) Phillips Academy collection.
]

That they are found in regions where there are many mounds used to be
stated, but this is hardly correct. They have never been found in a
mound, and I do not know of an instance where they have been found in
graves. They occur more in northern Ohio, Canada, and New York State
than elsewhere except Michigan and Wisconsin. I firmly believe that they
were not made and used by mound-building tribes but antedate the
mound-building period. As to the exact purpose of these things I leave
others to judge.

ANIMAL AND HUMAN EFFIGIES

There are many crude effigies, many grotesque sculptures found in this
country. There are also stones that are in the border-lands between
highly developed problematical forms and effigies. Fig. 413 presents a
group of these from the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Massachusetts. The
upper row appears to be whale effigies. In the lower row are small stone
bowls or paint-cups.

[Illustration:

FIG. 418. (S. 1–2.) shows four peculiar stones from the Salt River
Valley, Arizona. The one in the lower left-hand corner illustrates
an armadillo; in the upper right-hand corner, an owl. The others are
unknown effigies. These Arizona specimens are all of volcanic tufa,
and are typical of the region. Large numbers were found by Mr.
Cushing during his explorations of the ruins of the Salt River
Valley, and something like a hundred were dug up by me for Mr.
Peabody when I visited the region. The purpose of these is unknown.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 419. (S. 1–1.) Front view of the “Owl Ornament,” found in a grave
at Fort Ancient, Ohio, 1882. Collection of the Ohio State
University. One of the first specimens collected by W. K. Moorehead
at Fort Ancient. Material, graphite slate.

Few finer problematical forms have been found. There are two grooves
on the face and back of this object. One runs from the top down
about an inch and one half, intersecting the other. In the angles
formed by these two grooves are two perforations extending through
the stone and drilled from each side. At the bottom is an
oval-shaped hole on the face extending through. This latter
perforation does not exhibit an oval shape from the rear, but
presents a round appearance. Around this oval-shaped depression are
fourteen holes, each drilled about one eighth of an inch deep. They
present the form of an arrow-head, or a heart. On the reverse side
are two holes above the oval perforations which are not drilled
through the stone, and which lie just under the horizontal groove.
The remarkable part of this stone is that the symbol, three, occurs
on it in three places—on the face twice and on the reverse once.
]

Quite a number of these whale and other effigies have been found in New
England; but effigy-work in stone, the making of art-forms from life,
was more general in the South and Southwest than in New England, where,
indeed, effigy animals are exceedingly rare.

Fig. 415 illustrates an effigy of a bear. This was found in Salem during
excavations for a cellar and is in the Peabody Museum of that city.

Mr. L. C. Deming, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, owns a peculiar effigy in stone
about six inches in height. Just what it represents I am unable to
state, as the ancient workman’s sculpture is crude.

[Illustration:

FIG. 420. (S. 1–1.) The “Owl Ornament,” rear view.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 421. (S. 1–1.) Salem collection. This shows a grooved bar-like
object at the bottom, and a curious effigy pendant above.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 422. (S. 1–3.) W. E. Bryan’s collection, Elmira, New York.
]

Fig. 416 shows a number of spindle-whorls to which reference has been
made elsewhere. These are made of clay, hard baked. In the lower centre
is a stone idol found in a large ruin at Mesa, Arizona. It is made of
hard redstone. There is a little depression in the top of the head half
an inch in depth. Near the top is a curious animal effigy with eight
legs. This is made of fine-grained lava and has a depression in the
centre about one and one half inches in diameter.

[Illustration:

FIG. 423. (S. 1–1.) From a mound near South Carrollton, Kentucky.
Presented to the Phillips Academy Museum, by F. G. Hilman, New
Bedford, Massachusetts.
]

Fig. 417 illustrates two effigies, full size, of black onyx, each
typifying a bird. These are very finely carved and were found in
southern Arizona in a ruin, by the expedition sent there by Mr. R. S.
Peabody, 1897–98.

The human form was frequently indicated in stone by the Indians. These
sculptures range from very crude delineations, which I have not shown,
to the first steps in more ambitious work, such as is exhibited in Fig.
422. This stone head was found near Elmira, New York, by Mr. Ward E.
Bryan. The original was seven or eight inches in length. It is cut out
of fine-grained sandstone. On the back are curious lines and dots as
shown in the figure. The face shown is much cruder than that in Fig.
423. That face is of the peculiar type known as “Mound-Builder.” I have
referred to this resemblance elsewhere. Inspection of Fig. 499 in the
pipe series, found by Professor Mills at Adena, in the Scioto Valley,
Ohio, and of the idol, Fig. 426, and some of the effigy pottery, will
acquaint readers with this curious, strongly marked, Mound-Builder type
of feature. Other examples are to be seen in books treating of American
archæology.

[Illustration:

FIG. 424. (S. 1–4.) An idol and three flutes. B. H. Young’s
collection.

The long flute at the top is made of slate. The head is an imitation
of a serpent’s head. It has five holes regularly spaced. It is
evident that a small block of wood was placed in the mouth to lessen
the wind space.

The central one is of stone, open at both ends, with four holes.

The smallest one, of bone, is open at both ends.

On each of these instruments from seven to nine different sounds can
be made.

The idol was found in Tennessee, near the Kentucky line. It is made of
dark steatite, and is unique in representing the full human form.
]

The idol presented in Fig. 426 is a remarkable effigy. Not a few of
these have been found near the Etowah Group of mounds in Georgia. All
such idols have either been found in graves or on the sites of Southern
villages, where population was considerable. I never knew of them being
found in a mound, although there may have been such discoveries.

[Illustration:

FIG. 425. (S. 1–3.) B. H. Young’s collection. Wooden image found many
years ago in Bell County, Kentucky, near Middlesboro, in a cave by a
turkey-hunter. It is made of yellow pine, and is of form similar to
the stone effigies found in Kentucky. The ears are pierced for
ear-rings, and the wrists grooved for bracelets.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 426. (S. about 1–6.) Found in 1886 near the Etowah Group of
mounds, Cartersville, Georgia. Material, steatite. Height, 21
inches. Weight, 56½ pounds.
]

CHAPTER XXVI
GROUND STONE

STONE PIPES

Previous to the discovery of America, that strange custom of smoking was
confined to the New World natives. There have been some vague references
to inhaling of smoke by other ancient peoples elsewhere in the world.
But these are still in the realm of doubt. Certain it is that the
burning of tobacco, dried leaves, bark, etc., in stone, bone, clay, or
copper receptacles was not known to any considerable number of men
before Columbus set out upon his uncertain voyage, on an unknown sea.

There is an extensive literature dealing with pipes and smoking customs
of America, and it is unfortunate that I am unable to produce more than
a portion of what has been said by the early travelers, and later
scholars and others, regarding this peculiar custom. However, there are
two important publications accessible to all readers. The first was
published by Mr. Joseph D. McGuire.[9] Mr. McGuire illustrates his paper
with two hundred and thirty-one figures and five plates. The other paper
was written by Mr. George A. West and contains seventeen plates and two
hundred and three figures.[10] Mr. McGuire made a study of pipes and
smoking customs throughout the United States; Mr. West, of the St.
Lawrence basin and particularly Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and
Canada. These two publications will give readers abundant material for
consideration, and because of their excellence, I have made this
somewhat lengthy reference to them.

In addition to the monographs cited, there are numerous shorter articles
scattered throughout various publications and reports. These will be
found if readers refer to the Bibliography.

In the following pages, I follow the classifications made by Messrs.
McGuire and West with very few changes. These must both stand as the
best that have appeared on the subject up to the present time.

[Illustration:

FIG. 427. (S. 1–1.) Stone pipe-bowl made of catlinite. Collection of
the University of Toronto, Ontario. Found by Henry Montgomery in a
mound in western Manitoba.
]

Since Mr. McGuire’s paper was published there have been large additions
to pipe collections in the museums and private collections. As to the
number of pipes in the Smithsonian, American Museum, Peabody Museum, and
others, I do not know, but one might venture the opinion that each of
these three institutions have at the least fifteen hundred or two
thousand pipes scattered throughout the collections; and the smaller
museums in proportion. Professor W. C. Mills informs me that there are
two hundred and forty pipes in the exhibit under his charge at Columbus,
comprising collections owned by the Ohio State University and the Ohio
Archæological and Historical Society. They are divided as follows:
Monitor, twenty-eight; effigy, forty; tubular, twenty-four;
miscellaneous, one hundred and forty-eight. In the Andover collection
there are about one hundred and seventy pipes.

There are two large private collections of pipes in America. Mr. John A.
Beck of Pittsburg owns about eighteen hundred pipes of various kinds
from the United States and Canada. Mr. George A. West reports that there
are six hundred in his possession.

Pipes, from their very nature, were probably more highly prized among
our aborigines than any other articles. The pipe was sacred, and it was
not until Europeans, with their superior civilization, took up the
smoking custom, that it became a habit and totally lost its original
significance.

It is quite likely that pipes were more generally exchanged among tribes
than other artifacts. Possibly, one should except copper, but I am not
even sure of that. We find Northern forms South, Eastern types West, and
a general indication that aboriginal barter or trade in pipes was
extensive.

[Illustration:

FIG. 428. (S. about 1–2.) Pipes from North Dakota mounds. Explorations
of Henry Montgomery. (_a_) Pipe-bowl of catlinite. (_b_) Piece of
catlinite pipe-bowl which had been cut off before burial. (_c_)
Catlinite pipe, 2¼ inches in length. (_d_) Large bowl of catlinite
pipe, 10¼ inches long; from Ramsey County. (_e_) Catlinite pipe-bowl
found with the piece of pipe shown in (_b_). (_f_) Pipe-bowl made
from deer antler; length, about 4 inches. (_g_) Clay pipe, bent;
length, 5 inches; found in burial-pit in Benson County. (_h_)
Catlinite pipe-bowl, 1½ inches long. (_i_) Straight bowl of clay
pipe; length, 2¾ inches; found in burial-pit in Ramsey County. (See
Fig. 429.)
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 429. (S. about 1–2.) Pipes from North Dakota mounds. Described
under Fig. 428. (_American Anthropologist_, vol. 8, no. 4, plate
33.)
]

_The Classification of Pipes_

No one save Mr. J. D. McGuire has attempted to group these objects. In
his classification, Mr. McGuire presented four plates in which he showed
the distribution of fifteen types of pipes. I have followed his numbers,
but instead of presenting a map, have named states or localities, from
which these were taken.

1. Curved-base mound pipe. Mississippi Valley, north of the Ohio and
west of Pennsylvania. Also the Great Lakes basin.

2. Heavy bird or animal pipe. South of the Ohio and east of the
Mississippi.

3. Tubular pipe. East of the Mississippi, and from central Ohio east.
Throughout the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Coast.

4. Iroquoian clay pipe. New England to New York; Ohio, Michigan, and
West Virginia.

5. Iroquoian grotesque bird-pipe. The same region. Also eastern
Canada.

6. Iroquoian rectangular pipe. Eastern Canada and New York.

7. Disc or jewsharp pipe. Mississippi Valley, central portion.

8. Biconical pipe. Southern Mississippi Valley, east of the
Mississippi and south of the Ohio. Also Ohio and Michigan.

9. Micmac, keel-base pipes. The St. Lawrence basin.

10. Siouan and catlinite type. The Great Plains.

11. Southern mound type. The South, east of the Mississippi, and north
of Florida.

12. Pueblo pipes. Southwest.

13. Rectangular pipes, birds, and animals on bowls. Pennsylvania and
Ohio.

14. Monitor pipe. Ohio and Mississippi Valley, north of the mouth of
the Ohio, and Wisconsin.

15. Bowl and vase-shaped pipes. Kansas and entire eastern United
States, north of Alabama and Georgia.

[Illustration:

FIG. 430. (S. 1–1.) Earthenware pipe. Found near Lake Champlain.
Collection of the University of Vermont.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 431. (S. 1–1.) Conoidal tube pipe. Collection of G. A. West,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Sheboygan County, red catlinite.
]

This table will serve as a beginning, but it is incomplete. Many pipes
of the types mentioned by Mr. McGuire are found in other sections than
those named by him.

[Illustration:

FIG. 432. (S. a little over 1–3.) Found in a mound on Long Island,
Tennessee River, Jackson County, Alabama. Collection of J. T.
Reeder, Michigan.
]

The names of some pipes may not be familiar to all of my readers. I
therefore repeat Mr. McGuire’s list of fifteen pipe-types, and state
opposite each, the numbers of figures illustrating that particular type.

The fifteen types of pipes described by Mr. McGuire are illustrated in
this chapter under the following figure numbers:—

1. Curved-base mound pipe. Fig. 452.

2. Heavy bird or animal pipe. Figs. 477 and 481.

3. Tubular pipe. Figs. 428 and 446.

4. Iroquoian clay pipe. Upper specimen, Fig. 465.

5. Iroquoian grotesque bird-pipe. Fig. 470.

6. Iroquoian rectangular pipe. Central specimen, Fig. 465.

7. Disc or jewsharp pipe. Fig. 447.

8. Biconical pipe. Right specimen, Fig. 489.

9. Micmacs, keel-base pipes. One in Fig. 453; left specimen in Fig.
464.

10. Siouan and catlinite type. Fig. 437.

11. Southern mound type. Specimen K in Fig. 463.

12. Pueblo pipes. (No figures presented, but they resemble those in
Figs. 428, 446.)

13. Rectangular pipes, birds and animals on bowls. Fig. 496, specimen
in the lower left-hand corner.

14. Monitor pipe. Figs. 451, 449.

15. Bowl and vase-shaped pipes. Fig. 458, central specimen, Fig. 464.

Certain areas are characterized by particular forms of pipes, and in
regions where the population was more dense, several types of pipes are
usually found, thus indicating that they were taken from one region to
another.

[Illustration:

FIG. 433. (S. 1–2.) Collection of S. Van Rensselaer, Newark, New
Jersey.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 434. (S. 1–2.) Pottery pipes from Simcoe and Durham counties,
Ontario, Canada. Toronto University collection. Characteristic of
northern central Ontario.
]

One fact stands out prominently with reference to these pipes, and it is
that any one who is familiar with conditions under which pipes are found
can distinguish the prehistoric from the modern in most instances. Of
course there are exceptions. Many modern pipes show the marks of steel
tools, whereas the ancient forms do not. Certain specimens appear to
those who have done a great deal of field work as ancient, whereas
others do not. This is not merely a matter of opinion. I have found it
very difficult, during my lifetime, to make those observers who have no
intimate knowledge of field conditions realize the importance of this
statement. There is no convenient formula whereby one may explain to a
skeptic, how one specimen appears old and another does not. I shall
consider this subject at greater length in the Conclusions.

[Illustration:

FIG. 435. Peculiar tube pipes. Collection of G. A. West, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Tubular and trumpet-like pipes are shown in Figs. 427–28,
and 430. These are considered to be earliest forms. More complicated
tubes are observed in Fig. 435. Mr. West described these in his
paper, previously cited.
]

Various remarks offered here and there on the pages of this chapter may
be taken to represent my conclusions as to pipes. I have not offered a
summary at the end of the chapter, preferring to state pertinent
observations, suggested by the figures illustrating pipes, as they
occur.

[Illustration:

FIG. 436. (S. 2–3.) Onyx pipe-bowl with wooden stem. From cave-house
ruins in San Juan County, Utah, February, 1894. The pipe lies
against a fragmentary skin covering or robe. Henry Montgomery,
Toronto, Ontario.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 437. (S. 1–2.) Diminutive Siouan pipes. Collection of G. A. West,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
]

Of the fifteen types named by Mr. McGuire, the tubular, rectangular, and
slightly curved pipe (of the forms shown in Fig. 433), are most common
and widespread in the United States. As some years have elapsed since
Mr. McGuire’s paper was written, monitor pipes in numbers have been
reported from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.

[Illustration:

FIG. 438. (S. 1–2.) Peculiar stone pipe. Collection of H. M. Whelpley,
St. Louis, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 439. (S. 1–2.) Vase-shaped pipe. John Weber’s collection. “Found
by Mr. John Weber, in Killare, Juneau County, Wisconsin, in 1895, is
of a pinkish-colored stone, and exhibits on its two opposite faces
etched figures of some animal, possibly a lizard. The figure is
after a sketch furnished by Mr. W. H. Elkey.”
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 440. (S. 2–3.) Double conoidal pipe. J. P. Schumacher’s
collection. “A very attractive example, from Brown County,
Wisconsin, is of dark sandstone, nearly 4 inches long, 2½ inches
high, 3 inches wide, and oval in shape with a flat base. Its stem
and bowl cavities are each fully an inch in diameter at the surface,
and are placed at right angles to each other. This pipe was
evidently pecked into shape, both bowl and stem holes being made by
the same process.”
]

The modern Sioux, Ojibwa, and Winnebago and other pipes between the
years 1700 and 1850 are interesting by way of comparison. Mr. West[11]
wrote a few paragraphs concerning them, which I quote.

“No pipe was ever regarded by the American aborigine with greater
reverence and respect than the calumet. It was used in the ratification
of treaties and alliances; in the friendly reception of strangers; as a
symbol in declaring war or peace, and afforded its bearer safe transport
among savage tribes. Its acceptance sacredly sealed the terms of peace,
and its refusal was regarded as a rejection of them.

[Illustration:

FIG. 441. (S. 1–2.) Black pottery pipe. Collection of G. A. West,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “This is a type of Southern mound pipe taken
from a mound in Pepin County, Wisconsin. It is well tempered with
shell, contains eight knobs or coffee-bean protuberances about the
bowl, and the stem is ornamented on one side by a zigzag line,
probably intended to represent the emblem of lightning. This pipe is
3¼ inches long, and the only one of its kind so far found in this
state.”
]

“Calumets made of steatite, limestone, sandstone, and granite, are often
found, but a large majority of them are made of catlinite, a compact
clay slate, named after Mr. George Catlin, who lived for many years
among the Indians, and to whom great credit is due for his many
portraits and other paintings true to aboriginal life. The color of
catlinite is usually cherry red, often mottled and shading into ash,
grey, or black. This material was quarried by the Indians in several
places in Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, Missouri, and in Barron County,
Wisconsin. Specimens of ‘pipestone’ are sometimes secured from the
glacial drift. Pipes of catlinite are not necessarily of modern make.
Examples have been found, over a wide area, in Indian mounds and graves.
In 1880 a broken pipe of this material was found by Ole Rasmussen, in
the town of Farmington, Waupaca County, while digging a well, eighteen
or twenty feet below the surface. The material has been known, under
different names, ever since the Discovery.

[Illustration:

FIG. 442. (S. 1–1.) A pipe of banded slate from the collection of
Albert L. Addis, Albion, Indiana. Pipes of slate are not wanting,
and they are usually either rounded or angular. It is seldom that
the banded slate is worked into pipe effigies.
]

“Catlin, who in 1835 visited the pipestone quarries of Minnesota, had
previously found catlinite ‘in the hands of the savages of every tribe,
and nearly every individual in the tribe has his pipe made of it.’ After
a visit to the famous quarries, Catlin concludes as follows: ‘From the
very numerous marks of ancient and modern diggings or excavations, it
would appear that this place has been for many centuries resorted to for
the redstone; and from the great number of graves and remains of ancient
fortifications in its vicinity, it would seem, as well as from their
actual traditions, that the Indians have long held this place in high
superstitious estimation; also it has been the resort of different
tribes who have made their regular pilgrimages here to renew their
pipes.’”[12]

[Illustration:

FIG. 443. (S. 4–5.) Handled disc pipe. Collection of G. A. West,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A rare old specimen found in a mound near
Delavan, Walworth County, Wisconsin, of greenish-colored limestone,
the color probably due to copper stains.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 444. (S. 1–2.) Type of monitor pipe. Collection of G. A. West,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “Found near Buffalo Creek, Nelson County,
Virginia; of dark schist, is 5 inches long. It has an alate stem,
running the length of the centre of which is a pronounced ridge. The
largest specimen of this type so far encountered is probably a
‘Great Pipe,’ having a bowl 8 inches long, being upward of 17 inches
in total length, which was found in a mound in Marion County,
Kentucky.”
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 445. (S. 4–5.) Short-base monitor pipe. Collection of S. D.
Mitchell. This specimen was “found in the town of Aurora, Marquette
County, Wisconsin, is of drab slate, 2½ inches long, the end broken
away, base rounded, and is ornamented near the stem end on each side
by three deep grooves. A second example of the same shape in G. A.
West’s collection, found by Mr. August Bartle, in the town of Scott,
Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, in 1901, is of drab steatite. The top
of its bowl is ornamented by four sets of cross-lines, of three
lines each. The bowl cavities in each pipe are irregularly conical
in shape.”
]

In Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as southern Ohio, where the
population was dense, there are examples of nearly all the pipes except
the Iroquois and the catlinite. The few of these found in that region
must be set down as strays.

[Illustration:

FIG. 446. (S. 1–2.) Five tubular pipes, from the collection of James
A. Barr, Stockton, California.
]

The study of several specimens illustrated by both McGuire and West and
the comparison of the fifteen figures presented in “The Stone Age” will
acquaint readers with the distribution of forms and types. The striking
thing in all this, and it may be verified by inspection of any large
mound collection, is that the types shown in Figs. 435, 437, 439, and
465 are usually surface finds and may be distinguished from specimens
found in mounds and from various village-sites.

[Illustration:

FIG. 447. (S. 1–1.) Handled disc pipe. H. P. Hamilton’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 448. (S. 1–1.) Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana. From Kosciusko County, Indiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 449. (S. 2–5.) Straight-base monitor pipe, Logan collection,
Beloit College. “It was ploughed up in an early day by Mr. L.
Craigs, on Section 30, Eagle Township, Richland County, is of drab
steatite and finely polished. It is 9 inches long, 2¾ inches wide at
the base, 3 inches across the flange of the bowl, with the bowl
cavity ¾ inch in its greatest diameter, and made with a tubular
drill. This is certainly one of the finest examples of the
straight-base monitor pipe as yet found in Wisconsin.”
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 450. (S. 1–1.) This figure shows the top view of pipe shown in
Fig. 451, and is from the collection of Albert L. Addis, Albion,
Indiana. Found in northern Indiana.
]

Mr. West has kindly permitted me to reproduce portions of his valuable
paper on pipes, and I am sorry that space is insufficient to quote his
descriptions of the numerous figures he has loaned me. Referring again
to the Siouan pipes (Fig. 437), it requires no skill to distinguish
these modern forms from the more ancient. Many of the pipes shown in
that figure will apply to other living tribes as well as the Sioux.

[Illustration:

FIG. 451. (S. 1–1.) Collection of A. L. Addis, Albion, Indiana.
]

One may suppose that the tubular pipe soon developed into other forms.
That is, of course, taking it for granted that the tubular pipe is the
first form. Modifications of the tube tending toward the rectangular are
often met with, which seems to bear out this theory. Be that as it may,
we have in Fig. 438 a pipe from Dr. Whelpley’s collection, oval in
outline, curiously ornamented with circular depressions, and which is
hardly of the tubular class, but seems to be a modification of the same.
Instead of being perforated through its long diameter, the bowl is about
an inch from the broad end. Such a pipe as this is of rare occurrence.

It will be seen from an inspection of either Mr. West’s or Mr. McGuire’s
papers, as well as through a study of any museum collection, or of the
various figures presented in this section, that pipes on which there are
carvings or decorations, or pipes made in imitation of life-figures, are
quite as frequently found as plain and unornamented pipes. Why so much
skill should be employed on these pipes, whereas the flat surfaces of
slate gorgets and ornaments could have been more easily decorated, is a
problem. This may, however, be accounted for by the sacred significance
accorded to the pipe by the savage, for it was used in all ceremonial
performances, in the declaration of war and peace, and was among his
most treasured possessions. It is very seldom that we find markings or
tracings on any of these stone gorgets or ceremonial forms, yet on the
pipes, as remarked above, ornamentation is the rule. All of this is
significant to me, and I think that subsequently we shall be able to
draw some valuable lessons from this peculiarity.

[Illustration:

FIG. 452. (S. about 1–3.) Large, platform pipe from a burial. Length,
5⅕ inches. W. C. Mills’s explorations.
]

The Northern pipes, the pipes from the country west of the Mississippi,
excepting of course the calumets, appear to be smaller as a rule than
the Southern pipes, or the mound pipes. One might say that many of these
were individual and sometimes emblematic pipes rather than council
pipes. It must, however, not be forgotten that with the Indians of the
Great Lakes region especially, all significance was attached to the stem
and its ornamentation rather than to the bowl. Fig. 437 shows the
well-known Siouan types of pipes of that people from the time of their
migration to what is now known as Wisconsin. It is therefore possible
that some of the pipes of this place are several centuries old, while
others are distinctly of modern make.

[Illustration:

FIG. 453. (S. 1–3.) Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 454. (S. 1–1.) This is a straight-base monitor pipe from the
collection of George A. West. It is made of greenish steatite and
was found in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. It is a beautiful
specimen.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 455. (S. 1–1.) Collection of George Little, Xenia, Ohio.
]

There has been some discussion as to the part played by catlinite in
aboriginal trade or exchange. Catlinite does not appear to be as old as
other stones. It has been my theory that the catlinite quarry was of
recent discovery. By recent, I mean within two or three thousand years
or less. Catlinite pipes are frequently found in the mounds and graves
of Wisconsin, but not in those of the South in any considerable numbers.

[Illustration:

FIG. 456. (S. 1–1.) Collection of H. E. Towns, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 457. (S. 1–1.) This pipe was ploughed up five miles east of
Delaware, Ohio. Collection of Frank L. Grove, Delaware, Ohio.
]

In fact their occurrence there is very rare, yet they are found in great
numbers in modern graves, in village-sites where tribes have lived in
the historic period. This in itself is significant.

[Illustration:

FIG. 458. (S. 1–1.) Found about four miles north of Pierceton,
Indiana. Collection of W. F. Matchett, Pierceton, Indiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 459. (S. 1–5.) University of Vermont collection.
]

Fig. 446 shows five tubular pipes from California, collection of
Professor James A. Barr. These are all specialized forms, and somewhat
different in the method of treatment, being highly polished and
ornamented by rings carved in relief.

The disc pipe is placed in a class by itself by Mr. McGuire. We have six
of these at Andover, all from graves at the mouth of the Wabash,
southern Indiana. One of these is shown in Fig. 447. Mr. West remarks as
follows regarding this type of pipe:—

“The disc pipe, in the writer’s opinion, is an old type, and was in use
by the aborigines of this country long before the coming of the whites.
Authorities, however, differ as to this conclusion. General Gates P.
Thruston suggests that the stem holes of the disc pipe being
funnel-shaped, it may safely be regarded as an old type.

“Mr. J. D. McGuire writes: ‘The shape is so suggestive of the jewsharp,
an instrument used extensively in trade with the Indians, as to indicate
that the pipe itself is modeled after the form of this primitive musical
instrument, even though the file marks, so common on many of the pipes,
are absent from those coming under the writer’s observation.’

[Illustration:

FIG. 460. (S. 1–3.) Collection of L. W. Hills, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
]

“A careful study of the several forms of this type convinces the author
that it was not modeled after the jewsharp. Of the twenty-eight examples
in the author’s collection, when examined with a powerful glass, all
exhibited innumerable marks and scratches, that could have been made by
the use of a piece of sandstone or flake of flint. In no case were file
marks found.

“Mr. McGuire states: ‘Finding them of catlinite so far from the quarries
would indicate that they are of no great age.’ If Mr. McGuire’s
conclusion is correct, aboriginal barter and trade could not have been
carried on between distant tribes until within a comparatively recent
date, an abundance of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.”[13]

[Illustration:

FIG. 461. (S. 1–1.) Turtle pipe found at Pierceton, Indiana. Front
view. Collection of W. D. Matchett, Peirceton, Indiana.
]

“Fig. 447, found at Baldwin’s Mills, Waupaca County, the largest handled
disc pipe so far found in Wisconsin, is of beautiful dark red catlinite
with pink flecks. Its bowl is five inches long, terminating in a handle
shaped like the blade of a hatchet, with what would be the cutting edge
ornamented with three notches. The disc is 3½ inches wide and so thin
that the distance through from the face of the disk to the outer side of
the bowl is but three fourths of an inch. The stem hole has the
characteristic curve and its interior is nicely polished. Both stem and
bowl holes appear to have been started with a stone drill and enlarged
with a wooden drill used in conjunction with sand. Under a glass this
specimen shows innumerable scratches, but none of these appear to have
been made by the use of metal tools. The same can be said of eleven
handled disc pipes in the author’s collection.” Mr. West has a record of
one hundred and four disc pipes found in Wisconsin.

[Illustration:

FIG. 462. (S. 1–1.) Rear view of Fig. 461.
]

The fact that these disc pipes are frequently made of catlinite leads me
to believe that they are not as old as other forms; yet there seems to
be no evidence of their use after the advent of white man.

The pipe with the curved base and monitor pipes are closely related.
These are found throughout the entire Mississippi Valley, and are
especially numerous in Illinois, to West Virginia and from southern
Wisconsin to southern Tennessee. Many beautiful specimens have been
taken from mounds and graves, particularly from the mounds. In Figs.
449–53, I show five of these. Perhaps the most beautiful ones have been
found in the mounds of the Scioto Valley, Ohio.

[Illustration:

FIG. 463. (S. 1–3.) Group of pipes from various localities in the
Mississippi Valley.

(a) Scioto County, Ohio.
(b) Ross County, Ohio.
(c) Pipe made from a whale’s tooth, Alaska.
(d) Scioto County, Ohio.
(e) Miami County, Ohio.
(f) Scioto County, Ohio.
(g) Scioto County, Ohio.
(h) Wabash Cemetery, Indiana.
(i) Hancock County, Ohio.
(j) Silver Creek, Morgantown, North Carolina.
(k) Grovetown, Georgia.
]

Just how this peculiar form originated, no man may know. It was the
favorite among the prehistoric peoples. A few examples found in use
among historic tribes are very poor imitations of the old forms, and
cannot compare in workmanship and beauty of finish with such as are
removed from the mounds of the Middle West and the South.

[Illustration:

FIG. 464. Three pipe-bowls. Collection of Henry Montgomery, Toronto,
Ontario.

Left. Pipe-bowl made of sandstone. From near Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Length, 2¾ inches.

Centre. Pipe-bowl made of limestone. From Markham, Ontario. Length, 3
inches.

Right. Pipe-bowl made of white quartzite. Found by Henry Montgomery in
Simcoe County, Ontario. About one third actual size.
]

Beginning with Fig. 449 and continuing to Fig. 453, and from Fig. 471
through Fig. 500, I present a series of pipes, all of which are
decorated either by incised lines or by likenesses of animals, birds, or
human beings, carved in relief. These may be taken as typical of any
large series of pipes in a public museum, and represent the height of
pipe-making art.

As previously remarked, the decoration seems to be the essential thing
in pipes. The idea of the maker was to portray something on the pipe or
to have the pipe stand for more than a mere receptacle in which tobacco
was smoked. No other conclusion is possible when we consider the high
percentage of decorated and ornamented pipes, and the surprising number
of pipes worked into effigies. Fig. 469 is a very clumsy pipe at best,
and the decorations on it may not indicate age. Examples such as this
are not wanting, and there are a great many in collections. Contrasted
with this rough specimen is Fig. 455, which is also decorated but is
worked less crudely.

[Illustration:

FIG. 465. (S. 1–1.) Collection of the Buffalo Society of Natural
Sciences, Buffalo, New York. Typical Iroquois pipes. These are fine
examples of Iroquois art and were found in western New York, where
the Iroquois culture was high. From graves at Grand Island, New
York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 466. (S. 1–3.)

From a stone grave, Wofford Farm, Hurricane Mills, Humphrey County,
Tennessee. Material: red and brown clay.

Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 467. (S. 1–1.)

Greenstone pipe found in Tennessee. Apparently an Iroquois type of
pipe. This is a rare form.

From the collection of W. B. Rhodes, Danville, Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 468. (S. 2–3.) New York State Museum collection, Albany, New
York. Human effigy and human bird-pipes from Iroquois sites in
northwestern New York. Both of these sculptures are unusually fine
examples of art in pipe-working, for the greater part of Iroquois
pipes are plainer.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 469. Pottery pipe with human face; the stem part broken off.
Simcoe County, Ontario, Canada. Toronto University Museum.
]

The human sculpture of the priest on the altar at Palenque, so
frequently illustrated, illustrates an individual either blowing or
drawing smoke through a tube. The tube is ornamented with bands, and
appears to be larger at one end. It is a straight and not a curved pipe.
I have always thought that this interesting figure from ancient Palenque
typified what the pipe meant to the more cultured American tribes. There
is a vast difference between the use of the pipe as portrayed in that
sculpture, and the degeneration of the smoking ceremony as it appears
to-day among modern tribes. We have in this figure the ancient shaman in
full regalia; the elaboration with which the slab is wrought, and the
fact that it was part of the sacred altar at Palenque, are significant.

[Illustration:

FIG. 470. New York State Museum collection, Albany, New York. The New
York State Museum contains many fine specimens of early Iroquois
make. The upper figure to the right, with long stem, is gracefully
curved.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 471. (S. 1–1.) Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana. This is the form of bird effigy most frequently found. That
is, it is not common, but more of this type are found in the
Mound-Builder country than other bird-forms.
]

We have no such sculptures in the Mississippi Valley, but we have altar
mounds in which effigy and monitor pipes were buried. I have never found
a crude pipe in an altar mound and I do not think that either Squier and
Davis or Professor Mills ever found an example of crude art in an altar
mound. This refers to original interments, on the base-line—not to
intrusive burials. Everything indicates that the pipes in use in
pre-Columbian times were of two kinds, the small, individual pipes, and
the large council pipes, or those made use of at important functions
either religious or tribal, being characteristic. I have never observed
the mark of any steel or iron tool on a mound pipe in the Ohio Valley.

[Illustration:

FIG. 472. (S. 1–2.) This form of pipe is rare in Wisconsin. But a few
mouth-pipes with curved bases have been found in the St. Lawrence
region. It may have been obtained by trade in the South. Collection
of J. G. Pickett.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 473. (S. 1–2.) Collection of A. J. Powers, Mt. Vernon, Iowa.
Eagle pipe, Georgia. This remarkable pipe has been described several
times in various publications. It is a beautiful specimen.
]

Whether smoking was discovered through accident, or developed from the
use of the straight tube in the hands of the priests, is something we
may never be able to determine with accuracy.

While the effigy pipes required particular skill in their manufacture,
yet some of the tubular, rectangular, and disc pipes, although
unornamented, are wrought skillfully and brought to a high finish, and
the surfaces polished until almost as smooth as glass.

[Illustration:

FIG. 474. Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne, Indiana. A group
of beautiful mound pipes from Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. None
of these can be considered modern.
]

I have often thought that a careful catalogue of all pipes in our large
museums, with a detailed statement as to where each was found, would be
of great value, and enable us to prepare accurate tables as to these and
their significance and age. In this connection it is to be regretted
that greater care has not been at all times exercised in securing
complete data relative to aboriginal pipes and other artifacts deposited
in museums and private collections, for without this a specimen however
interesting is of little value in solving archæological problems.

[Illustration:

FIG. 474 _A_. (S. 2–3.) Front and rear view of pipe from Trigg County,
Kentucky. Hard, compact, dark reddish stone. B. H. Young’s
collection.
]

The bird seems to have been the favorite sculpture, yet there are
frequent portrayals of the frog. I present three of them, all of
sandstone, in Figs. 485 and 486, and a beautiful one, full size, in a
photogravure plate, Fig. 500, from the collection of Mr. F. P. Graves,
Doe Run, Missouri.

[Illustration:

FIG. 475. (S. about 1–1.) Slate pipe, bird effigy. Collection of Mrs.
Nellie Gowthrop, Camden, Michigan.
]

Among the Ojibwa Indians, during the summer of 1909, I observed a number
of stone pipes in use. An excellent opportunity was afforded to study
such among these Indians, as I was on White Earth Reservation,
Minnesota, for seventeen weeks, and came in contact with all the full
blood Indians and many of the mixed bloods. Being frequently in council
with these Indians, I observed their pipes with some care. Except
rectangular pipes of Siouan types, which were inlaid with lead or
silver, most of the pipes were exceedingly crude and far inferior in
every way to the ancient forms. Few Indians owned inlaid pipes. The
major part of all the pipes I observed were common egg-shaped bowls
without stem which were fitted with the common cane or wooden stem, such
as are sold in stores at a penny each. Others were rectangular and
unornamented. Two in use by old medicine-men, one smoked by a Cree
woman, and several others were purchased by me and placed in the Andover
collection.

As these Ojibwa are all in possession of steel tools, one would suppose
that their pipes would be well made. But on the contrary, the art of
making pipes has degenerated among them.

While there are tubular pipes in California, they do not occur in great
numbers, and, as has been remarked, other types of pipes are either very
scarce or entirely absent.

It seems to me that among our American aborigines the finest art existed
previous to contact with European civilization. The finest sculptures on
exhibition in our museums come from sites which appear to be
prehistoric. To him who is skeptical and does not believe these
statements, I suggest that he inspect modern Iroquoian, Siouan, Ojibwa,
and Cherokee pipes, and compare them with the ancient forms such as have
been taken from mounds and graves in southern Ohio, Kentucky, and
Tennessee.

[Illustration:

FIG. 476. (S. about 1–3.) Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton,
Michigan. Locality, Tennessee. Materials: soapstone, slate, and
quartz.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 476 _A_. (S. about 1–3.) Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton,
Michigan. Locality, North Carolina. Material, soapstone.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 476 _B_. (S. 3–4.) Steatite, Barbour County, Kentucky. From a
mound on Stoner’s Creek. B. H. Young’s collection, Louisville,
Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 476 _C_. (S. 1–2.) This beautiful little pipe is of a type
occasionally found in Pennsylvania and the Carolinas. It may not be
prehistoric. At any rate, it is an interesting specimen. Collection
of Dudley A. Martin, Duboistown, Pennsylvania.
]

Most of these tubular pipes are much larger at one end than the other,
corresponding to the bowl, which is more highly developed in later
forms. There is one in the Andover collection that was obtained from the
Hupa Indians of California about fifty years ago by an early settler.
The stem is round, made of redwood, and a stone ring surrounds the bowl.
The tobacco would of necessity have to be packed tightly when one smoked
such a pipe, unless, as has been reported, the smoker lay upon his back.

Fig. 457 is a roughly outlined and unfinished effigy pipe, which when
complete was intended to represent the head of some animal. In this we
have evidence of the method of work on the part of the maker. Instead of
the hand-hammer it would appear that a cutting-tool had been used. He
had begun to rim out the bowl on the top of the head, but the stem hole
is not yet in evidence.

[Illustration:

FIG. 477. (S. 1–1.) Eagle pipe. Clarence B. Moore. A superb pipe of
limestone representing an eagle. “This pipe, 4.6 inches in length,
carved with great spirit, is a worthy exemplar of the prehistoric
art of Moundville. The bird is represented on its back, the head
swung around to one side with the beak open and tongue extended.
Incidentally, it may be said that the ‘hump’ shown on the tongue by
the native artist, though somewhat exaggerated, is not imaginary, as
may be proved upon examination of an eagle. It may be that this
pipe, showing as it does the eagle lying on its back, its legs and
claws on the belly, represents the dead bird. By pulling out the
tongue of a dead eagle one would be certain to notice the ‘hump’;
hence the examination of a dead bird would have sufficed so far as
correct rendering on the pipe was concerned. On the other hand, the
‘hump’ on the tongue is plainly shown on pottery from Moundville,
where the eagle’s head is erect and the bird is evidently
represented as alive.”
]

It is in the effigy pipes themselves as a class that we see the greatest
skill and care manifested in the manufacture of these strange objects.
This does not, however, mean that all effigy pipes are models of the
carver’s art, as many of them show poor workmanship. In other words, the
art in pipes is no exception to the rule of art elsewhere. There were
those who understood their business and produced masterpieces, and there
were those who produced just the opposite. There may be a totally
different method of treatment in representing the same creature, as for
instance Figs. 468 and 470 showing the Iroquois treatment of human and
bird forms in life; and the Southern Mound-Builder, Figs. 473, 474 _A_,
499, illustrating birds and men. The Iroquois and the Plains tribes made
pipes more nearly like our modern pipes of to-day. The bowl was round or
angular, and the stem long and tapering, or angular. Excellent examples
from the Buffalo collection are shown in Fig. 465.

[Illustration:

FIG. 477 _A_. (S. 1–1.) Eagle pipe. Clarence B. Moore. “Several
experts who have charge of eagles in captivity inform us that under
certain circumstances the ‘hump’ on the tongue is visible on the
living bird. Possibly the aboriginal artist at Moundville was
familiar with the characteristics on eagles through the possession
there of captive birds—a custom observed among the Zuñi of New
Mexico at the present time.

“Owing to slight disintegration of the stone at that part of the pipe
where the head is, the details of the carving are somewhat
indistinct, but by holding the pipe in a suitable light all the
details of the head are still distinguishable. A wing is represented
on each side. The legs, beginning at the tail, which extends
outward, rise upward and forward, the feet and talons resting on the
belly and embracing the orifice of the bowl. The opening for the
stem is immediately above the tail.”[14]
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 478. (S. 1–1.) Handled pipe. This figure “represents one of the
oldest handled pipes that has come under the writer’s observation.
This interesting specimen was taken from a burial-mound, on the
Nicholai farm, Big Bend, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, in July, 1902,
by Mr. La Fayette Ellerson. With it was found a curved-base mound
pipe.” From the collection of G. A. West, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 478 _A_. (S. 1–2.) Handled pipe. “Found by Mr. O. S. Ludington,
near Prairie du Chien, of red sandstone, formed, mainly by the
pecking process, into the shape of a fish, and is 5½ inches long, 2½
inches wide, and 1 inch thick. Its bowl cavity is three fourths of
an inch across, the stem hole nearly as large, and both are
cone-shaped, having been made with a stone drill. This specimen is
not worked down smooth, nor does it exhibit file marks.” From the
collection of G. A. West, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 479. (S. 1–3.) Six interesting effigy pipes from the collection
of Bennett H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 479 _A_. Turtle pipe. Milwaukee Museum collection. This figure
“is of grayish-brown steatite, 3¼ inches long, 2¼ inches in its
greatest width, and with a finely carved upper surface representing
a turtle. The bowl is in the centre of the turtle’s back, the stem
hole is small, and was doubtless used without the addition of a
detachable mouthpiece. The lower part of the body is flat, with no
attempt to form either legs or tail.” This specimen was discovered
within the southern limits of the city of Milwaukee, and is believed
to be one of two ceremonial pipes of turtle-form, so far found in
Wisconsin. “The turtle was an emblem of the Sioux, and from the
frequent occurrence of its shell in graves must have been held in
high esteem by the Indians; yet representations of it in stone are
exceedingly rare.”
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 480. (S. 1–1.) Effigy pipe, Hopewell Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 481. (S. 1–1.) Turtle pipe found near Burnett, Dodge County,
Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 481 _A_. (S. 1–1.) Another view of Fig. 481.
]

The Iroquois pipes and pipes characteristic of the Plains, pipes
classified by Mr. McGuire and Mr. West as Micmacs, and other modern
pipes, are scattered quite generally throughout north, central, and
eastern United States. It is good that Mr. McGuire has given us so
careful a distribution of pipes as is set forth in his fifteen
divisions. The student of archæology must distinguish between the pipes
from the old burial-places and those that are apparently modern. The
prehistoric cultures and the modern cultures of our American aborigines
here in the United States may be compared with those of Europe; where on
one site we might find Roman weapons or implements, those of early
Germanic tribes associated with the Roman, and beneath all of these,
those of the stone-age type. But if the soil had been disturbed, through
digging on the part of people subsequent to these epochs, stone-age
objects, together with those of Roman and Germanic occupations, might be
found associated together. It follows, therefore, that here in America,
when we find modern catlinite pipes and rectangular stone pipes on a
village-site or beneath the surface, these may represent different
epochs or cultures. These cultures may or may not be separated by
hundreds of years.

There are many complications to be taken into consideration, in our
study of the distribution of pipes. As has been pointed out, rude pipes
are quite as likely to have been made by modern Indians as by
prehistoric people.

It does not follow, because the type of pipes recognized as Iroquoian in
character is widespread north of the Ohio Valley and Canada, that all
pipes in that region were made by the tribes of this stock.

The Iroquois overran the entire territory north of the Ohio and east of
the Scioto. We know that they overwhelmed the Eries, Hurons, and others,
whose art was quite different.

[Illustration:

FIG. 482. (S. 1–2.) Oolitic limestone pipe, Hart County, Kentucky.
Highly polished, a beautiful specimen. Collection of Bennett H.
Young. These long effigy pipes of this type are to be found in the
Smithsonian and American Museum collections. An example in the G. A.
West collection, found in Ohio, is 14 inches long.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 483. (S. 1–1.)

From ossuary in the Township of Manvers, County of Durham, Ontario,
Canada.

Collection of J. G. Ogle D’Olier, Rochester, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 484. (S. 1–1.)

From ossuary in the Township of Manvers, County of Durham, Ontario,
Canada.

Collection of J. G. Ogle D’Olier, Rochester, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 485. (S. 2–3.) Beautiful effigy pipe of a frog found in a grave
at Waynesville, Ohio, overlooking the Miami River. Secured by W. K.
Moorehead, 1889. Now in the Ohio State University Museum, Columbus.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 486. (S. 1–2.) Frog pipe. From village-site at the mouth of Bush
Creek, Adams County, Ohio.
]

As I have remarked, these Iroquoian pipes are easily distinguished from
other forms; they are not found in the ancient burial-places of the
Mississippi Valley. The beautiful mound and grave pipes from the Ohio
Valley, the middle South, and the far South, shown in Figs. 474, 477 A,
485 to 491, 494, 496, and 499, are not only of ancient lineage, but show
no mark of steel tools, and do not appear to have been inspired by
European civilization. On the other hand, many of the pipes referred to
do appear to have been suggested by a knowledge of European art. Some of
the best effigy pipes, the monitor or platform pipes, were not made of
stone, but of a fine grade of fire-clay. There are also effigies in
pipes of terra-cotta. In answering a letter requesting information,
Professor W. C. Mills, under date of April 27, 1910, said concerning the
pipes in his collection: “Of the platform pipes, ten are fire-clay, of
the effigy pipes, fifteen are fire-clay, and of the tubular pipes,
twenty are fire-clay. The fire-clay pipes were never burned, but were
cut from original pieces of clay. Twenty of the miscellaneous pipes are
made of potter’s clay.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 487. (S. 2–3.) An interesting human effigy found in northern
Ohio, now in the collection of the Ohio State University, Columbus.
]

The bird is much in evidence as a prehistoric sculpture. In fact, there
are more bird-pipes than any other life-form. This at once suggests the
famous “Thunder Bird,” so famous in Indian mythology in America. Yet if
it is true that these effigies are not totemic, as relating to tribes,
but stand for “Thunder Birds,” it is curious that so many different
kinds of birds should have been represented. There are the hawk, eagle,
crow, woodcock, duck, woodpecker, paroquet, and others. Examine Fig. 474
_A_. It is one of the best sculptures presented in this chapter. Compare
this beautiful carving with the following bird-pipes, Figs. 470, 471,
473, 476, 477, 480, where possible readers are advised to visit some
public museum or consult a library and study the illustrations of
bird-pipes. The range is considerable. Even in so brief space as is
afforded in this chapter, it will be observed that it was the intention
of the ancient people to represent not one kind of bird but many. The
statement frequently made, that it is impossible in some instances to
determine just what species of bird was intended, is true. But we have
no difficulty in distinguishing between the duck, the eagle, the owl, or
the crow, although the different kinds of ducks, or of hawks, might not
be differentiated accurately.

[Illustration:

FIG. 488. (S. 1–1.) Effigy pipe of limestone. A remarkable effigy pipe
found by Mr. Moore in one of the mounds at Moundville, Alabama. This
group of mounds has furnished some remarkable specimens in stone and
clay.
]

Mr. West says of the so-called handled pipes:—

“In this class the author has placed a small number of very interesting
pipes which are provided with an elongated base or handle, by which they
were held or supported; and in most examples with a short mouthpiece
also. Some are without the latter feature, and were probably furnished
with a short stem of wood or bone. They differ considerably as to
general shape and manner of ornamentation. A few have the bowls
artistically carved to represent the head of a human being, a fish, or
an animal.

“A small number of similar pipes have been described from other sections
of the United States. Twenty-two examples have been found in Wisconsin,
no two of which are of exactly the same pattern. No theory of their
authorship among the Wisconsin or other Indians has as yet been
advanced. Even though originally limited to one tribe, so convenient a
form of pipe is sure to have been copied by individuals belonging to
others.

[Illustration:

FIG. 489. (S. 2–3.) These pipes were found together in a small mound,
a short distance south of St. Louis, Missouri. Collection of H. M.
Braun, East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 490. (S. 2–3.) Human effigy pipe, from a grave in the Willis
Cemetery, Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Phillips Academy collection.
]

“Authorities who have written on the subject, seem to regard this type
of pipe as modern. Some of the Wisconsin finds contain no marks of metal
tools, are unpolished, and have all indications of being prehistoric,
while others are new in appearance, finely polished and show evidence of
the use of metal tools in their manufacture.”[15]

[Illustration:

FIG. 491. (S. 3–5.) The discs and the effigy pipes were found in 1904
by W. W. Almond while ploughing on a farm near Menard’s Mound, about
eight miles from Arkansas Post. It would appear that these were
buried together in a cache, and covered with a layer of pottery.
These will be described more fully under Conclusions, chapters
XXXVI, XXXVII.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 492. (S. 4–5.) Collection of W. C. Herriman, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.

Figs. 492 and 493 present two views of a pipe of the ordinary clay
material. The bowl is behind the head, passing down the region of
the back. The unique feature of this pipe is that when shaken it
gives evidence of a hollow sound in the head with several small,
hard particles which distinctly rattle. These have never been
investigated and their nature is not known.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 493. (S. 4–5.) Side view of Fig. 492.
]

Fig. 480 is a remarkable carving in graphite slate. This was found by me
on the altar of the effigy mound, Hopewell Group, Ross County, Ohio,
during the course of explorations, August 1901–March 1902. The pipe
represents a woodcock resting on the back of a grotesque fish. The bird
is true to life, the fish is not. No pipe found by Squier and Davis in
the famous Mound City Group exceeded this in its beautiful artistic
lines and skill evinced in manufacture. With this pipe were thousands of
pearl beads, copper ear ornaments, obsidian blades, and other remarkable
objects, all of which are foreign to Ohio. The pipe, together with the
other objects, is exhibited in the Field Museum of Natural History,
Chicago.

[Illustration:

FIG. 494. (S. about 2–7.) Collection of H. M. Whelpley, St. Louis, Mo.
Found near Muskogee, Ind. Ter. Color, terra-cotta; size, eight and
one half inches high by five and one half inches anterio-posterior,
by four and one eighth inches wide; weight, five pounds. The
discoidal in the right hand measures one and three fourths by five
eighths inches. Each of the two sticks in the left hand are four and
one eighth inches long. Earrings, one by three eighths inch; bead
under chin, three fourths by three eighths inch.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 495. (S. 1–6.) Collection of W. A. Holmes, Chicago, Illinois.
]

In Figs. 481 and 481 _A_, I present front and rear views of an effigy
pipe from Wisconsin, now in the Milwaukee Public Museum. This is one of
the finest examples of mound pipe found in the North. An inspection of
the two figures will acquaint readers with the fact that the top and
bottom of the pipe represent two kinds of reptilia. Prof. S. A. Barrett,
who kindly furnished this and some other photographs for me, explains
this peculiarity as follows:

[Illustration:

FIG. 496. (S. 1–2.) Collection of Leslie W. Hills, Fort Wayne,
Indiana. The effigy to the left is a remarkable and interesting
pipe, of hard black stone, and was found in Ohio.
]

“In sending you the information concerning specimens, there is one point
that I overlooked, and that is the difference between the carapace and
the plastron of the turtle pipe. It is an interesting fact that the
carapace of this specimen is that of a terrapin, while the plastron is
carved after the fashion of the snapping turtle.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 497. (S. 1–1.) Portrait pipe. Collection of G. A. West,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This figure was dug from a grave at East
Jacksonport, Door County, Wisconsin, over which was an old pine
stump 30 inches in diameter, by Mr. L. K. Erkskin, from whom it was
secured by Mr. W. H. Elkey, for Mr. G. A. West. This pipe is of
compact flinty limestone and most skillfully carved into a
resemblance of the head and face of a frowning Indian. Both bowl and
stem excavations are conical in shape, and were evidently made with
stone drills.
]

I have referred in a number of places to smoking as a ceremony. In
addition to being a rite, it was always practiced for medicinal
purposes. Not only did the Indians in ancient times inhale fumes in
order to alleviate distress, but the white people did likewise. Mr.
McGuire, in his work which I have previously quoted, makes this
perfectly clear and cites numerous instances as to the supposed curative
property of tobacco. I quote one of his paragraphs[16] concerning the
truly remarkable material gathered by Mr. Bragg:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 498. (S. 1–2.) Portrait pipe. Described by G. A. West, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. This figure “is of dark sandstone, 10 inches long, with a
portion of its bowl broken away. This remarkable pipe was found many
years ago near Fort Atkinson, Jefferson County, Wisconsin, and is
now in a private collection in the State of New Hampshire. It is a
calumet but not of the Siouan type. The writer is informed that this
specimen is unpolished, but has the appearance of great age,
contains no metal tool-marks, and shows much use.”
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 499. (S. 1–1.) Collection of Professor W. C. Mills, Columbus,
Ohio.
]

“Bragg’s collection of pipes, now in the British Museum, made from all
parts of the world, and his books relating to tobacco, the former
consisting of 13,000 specimens and the latter of 500 volumes, was as
rich as it was curious, and has probably never been equaled. The
medicinal and imaginary properties attaching to tobacco have been marked
among the American Indians to no greater extent than in Europe. Rembert
Dodoens in 1578 said ‘the perfume of dryed leaves, he sayd he layde upon
quick coles taken in the mouth through the pipe of a funnel or tunnel,
helpeth such as are troubled with shortness of winde and fetch their
breath thicke and often.’”[17]

In 1901 Professor W. C. Mills explored the Adena Mound near Chillicothe
for the Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society. One of the
skeletons, aside from having arrow-heads, knives, pearl and bone beads
and other relics, had near the left hand the beautiful effigy pipe shown
in Fig. 499. I present front and side views of this pipe, and quote from
Professor Mills’s Report as follows:—

“This pipe is eight inches in length, and is composed of clay,
resembling the fire-clay found in Scioto County, which is further south
but in the same valley. The pipe is tubular in form, the hole extending
the entire length of the body; the large opening is between the feet,
having a hole five eighths inch in diameter. Within an inch of the top
of the head it begins to narrow down to a very small aperture one eighth
inch in diameter. The mouthpiece formed a part of the head-dress of the
image. The front part of the pipe is of a light gray in color while the
back part is of a brick red. The specimen is covered with a deposit of
iron ore; this appears in small blotches over the entire surface of the
specimen, the one side of the face and body being more densely covered
with it than the other parts of the pipe.

“The effigy represents the human form in the nude state with the
exception of the covering around the loins; this covering extends round
the body and is tied in the back; the ends of the covering hang down and
serve as ornaments. On the front of this covering is a serpentine or
scroll-like ornamentation. From the lobe of each ear is hung an ear
ornament which is quite large in proportion to the ear, and resembles
very much the button-shaped copper ornaments which are so frequently
found in the mounds of the Scioto Valley.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 500. (_S. 1–1._)

_Frog pipe, from Tennessee, and rectangular pipe, from Georgia. Both
of fine sandstone. From the collection of F. P. Graves, Doe Run,
Saint Francois County, Missouri._
]

CHAPTER XXVII
GROUND STONE

MORTARS AND PESTLES

Classification of mortars and pestles.

Mortars.

(a) Oval or circular. (Figs. 501–02.)

(b) Angular or squared (metates). (Figs. 415–16.)

Pestles.

(a) Elongated, plain. (Fig. 517.)

(b) Elongated, ridged or ornamented. (Figs. 513–14.)

(d) With flat surfaces (mano-stones). (Fig. 515.)

There grew in North America, at the time of its discovery by Columbus, a
profusion of seeds, nuts, and roots of various kinds, developing
according to climate from northern Canada to southern Arizona. Man found
these a valuable addition to his food-supply, and he made use of many of
them that we of to-day should consider unpalatable. He procured
shell-fish of various kinds both salt and fresh water; he knew the
properties of many roots, bulbs, barks, and other plants. With the
exception of such molluscs as he ate, and his fresh meat, the greater
bulk of his food-supply was in the form of kernels, or grains, or bulbs,
or nuts, which must needs be reduced to meal, or stripped of husks, or
cracked and broken. To convert the raw food into palatable flour, he
used both wooden and stone pestles in flat, oval, or round mortars, the
form varying in different parts of the country.

In 1895, the American Antiquarian Society published “The Food of Certain
American Indians and Their Method of Preparing It,” by Professor Lucien
Carr. Mr. Carr was long Assistant Curator of the Peabody Museum at
Cambridge, and his research into historic Indian affairs is well known.
I quote a few paragraphs from Mr. Carr:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 501. (S. 1–8.) From the collection of Solon McCoy, Mountain Home,
Idaho.
]

“Speaking in a general way, the old chronicler was not far wrong when he
told us that the Indian ‘lived on what he got by hunting, fishing, and
cultivating the soil.’ Unquestionably, he derived the bulk of his food
from these sources, though there were times, and unfortunately they were
somewhat frequent, when he was glad to fill out his bill of fare with
the fruits, nuts, and edible roots and grasses with which a bountiful
Nature supplied him. Dividing all these different articles according to
their nature and origin, and beginning with those the production of
which is believed to indicate racial progress, we find that corn, beans,
and pumpkins were cultivated wherever, within the limits of the United
States, they could be grown to advantage. Of these corn was by far the
most important; and as it seems to have been the main dependence of all
the tribes that lived south of the St. Lawrence and east of the tier of
states that line the west bank of the Mississippi, and as the manner of
cultivating it and the different ways of cooking it were practically the
same everywhere and at all times, we shall confine our remarks to it and
to the Indians living within these limits, merely premising that much of
what is said about it will apply to ‘its sisters,’ as beans and squashes
were lovingly termed by the Iroquois.

[Illustration:

FIG. 502. (S. 1–3.) Ordinary mortar. Collection of Frank L. Grove,
Delaware, Ohio.
]

“And here, at the outset of our investigation, we are met by the fact
that modern research has failed to throw a positive light upon the
question of its origin. That it was indigenous to America is generally
believed, and so, also, the statement that it was first cultivated at
some point between the tropics is accepted. Beyond this we have not been
able to go; and without entering into a discussion of the subject, it is
probably safe to assume that this is as near the truth as we can hope to
get. However, be this as it may, there seems to be no doubt that its
domestication took place ages ago, for in no other way is it thought
possible to account for the vast extent of country over which its use
had spread, and for the number of varieties to which it had given rise.
Take our own country, for example, and when the whites first landed
here, there were found growing, within certain limited areas, a number
of different kinds, distinguished one from another, by the length of
time they took to ripen, by the size of the ear, by the shape and
hardness of the grain, and by the color, though this is said to be
accidental.

[Illustration:

FIG. 503. (S. 1–4.) Pestles, Class “C.” Collection of J. A. Rayner,
Piqua, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 504. (S. 1–5.) Collection of W. A. Holmes, Chicago, Illinois.
]

“In addition to these, which were known to the whites as hominy corn,
bread corn, and six-weeks corn, there was still another sort, called by
the French _blé fleuri_, and by ourselves popcorn, of which the Indians
were very fond, and which they served up to those of their guests whom
they wished to honor. With so many kinds, and planting them at different
times during the spring and early summer, they not only had successive
crops, which they ate green as long as the season lasted, but they also
raised enough for winter use, and, not unfrequently, had some to spare
to their needy neighbors, white as well as red. Indeed, their pedlers
made long trips for the purpose of exchanging their surplus corn for
skins and anything else that they needed; and but for the supplies which
the Pilgrim fathers, and we may add the settlers at Jamestown and New
Orleans, ‘obtained from the Indians willingly or through force,’ it is
probable, as a recent writer suggests,’that there would have been but
few if any of their descendants left to write their histories and sing
their praises.’”

The cultivation of corn in the United States was widespread. De Soto,
Coronado, and other early explorers in their wanderings, as well as our
military expeditions of the French and Indian War, the wars of the
Revolution and of 1812, found large corn-fields wherever the Indian
population was thickest.

In addition to corn, which is placed first, the Indians gathered wild
rice in the North and koonti and tuckahoe in the South. Of these roots,
it is stated: “It grew like a flagge, in the marshes, and when made into
bread had the ‘taste of potatoes.’” There were also great stores of
dried meat and fish put up in every village, quantities of maple sugar,
squashes, beans, pumpkins, and an endless variety of roots and nuts.

We now know that there are seventeen separate foods for which
civilization is indebted to the Indian.

[Illustration:

FIG. 504 _A_. (S. 1–4.) From the collection of B. H. Young,
Louisville, Kentucky. Rare forms of pestles from the Cumberland and
Tennessee valleys.
]

What we should consider the simplest form of mortar is a question. Of
course, the mortar, rather than the pestle, is the essential thing. Man
must have something in which to grind or crush his food, and it did not
matter to him whether the receptacle was wood, stone, or leather so long
as it served the purpose, and it was of no consequence to him whether
his pestle was a round stone, an oval, an elongated pestle or
bell-shaped, or a flat mano stone. What he wished to accomplish, the
reduction of grains or nuts or chunks of dried beef to flour, was of
primary importance, and the agencies employed to obtain this result were
secondary. Of course, he may have used elaborately ornamented and
artistically worked pestles and mortars in the preparation of sacred
meal; as to that I do not know. What I am talking about now is the
common form of mortar and pestle.

[Illustration:

FIG. 505. (S. 1–4.) Cast of a steatite bowl. Found near Lynn.
Collection of Salem Museum. Salem, Massachusetts.
]

Wooden mortars, as well as wooden bowls, existed in many portions of the
country. There are abundant historical references to these, and readers
are referred to the Bibliography in this instance as in others. The
natives smoothed the surface of a fallen tree-trunk, or the top of a
stump, and, by constant friction of either stone or wooden pestle, soon
wore out a mortar cavity. They also selected glacial boulders,
convenient points of bluffs, ledges, etc., in various parts of the
country, and worked out stationary mortars. These have been found in at
least a hundred places in the United States. Aside from the stationary
mortars, there were many small flat stones, and some large stones of
convenient size on which grinding is evident for a considerable length
of time, and as a result a depression varying from a few inches to a
foot or more in depth occurs.

Paint stones are simply small mortars. Sometimes they are highly
polished and well worked out, but usually they are rude and may be
classed as small mortars, as they are receptacles for grinding. Fig.
501, from the collection of Mr. Solon McCoy of Mountain Home, Idaho,
illustrates seven short pestles and seven small mortars, size one
eighth, such as are common in the Southwest and not infrequent in most
portions of the East. This illustration may stand as typical for all
such forms in the United States. The pestles used in them were more
properly rubbing-stones; the end is slightly flattened, more often they
are round at either end. Great numbers of short oval pestles occur in
the New England States, and the South. Fig. 504, from Mr. Holmes’s
collection, illustrates three stone pestles; the one to the left may
have come from any one of a dozen states, as the form is the same
everywhere; to the right, the typical bell-shaped pestles of the Ohio
Valley. In the centre, the pestle is bell-shaped, short, and has been
highly polished, and there is a prominent depression in the centre.

Fig. 503, from the collection of Mr. J. A. Rayner, pictures fifteen
pestles; all save four of the bell-shaped variety. The one at the top,
the centre, is an ordinary cone, to the right of that, a pestle with two
grinding surfaces, one at either end, which is rare. In the centre are
two long, slightly curved objects which may be pestles or rollers used
in preparing clay for the making of pottery. The variation in the bell
pestle is from an ordinary plain form to that having a narrow top and an
unusually broad, flat base. The pestles shown at the right in Fig. 514
are highly specialized forms from the Northwest. There are similar types
in the Ohio Valley, as shown in Fig. 504 A, Colonel Young’s collection.
But as a rule the natives of the Mississippi Valley paid little
attention to artistic development of domestic tools, such as pestles and
mortars. Fig. 502 is the ordinary large stone mortar common in the
eastern United States. It ranges from a small paint-cup in which a
muller no larger than one’s thumb was worked, to stationary mortars in
glacial boulders, so large that they cannot be moved. Fig. 507 presents
three mortars of lava, and some flat mortars of trap rock. These are
from Mr. G. B. Abbott’s collection, Corning, California. The stones used
on these are flat, or oval water-worn stones and not finished, like mano
stones common to the Cliff-Dweller country.

[Illustration:

FIG. 506. (S. 1–4.) Soapstone dish. From the Peabody Museum
collection, Salem, Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 507. (S. 1–9.) From the collection of G. B. Abbott, Corning,
California.
]

In the East and the South we have steatite or soapstone mortars,
cooking-pots, dishes, bowls, and sometimes dippers. Most of the larger
museums have examples of these and particularly in highly finished stone
dishes. Fig. 505 is a large, thin stone dish from the Peabody Museum,
Salem, which was found near Lynn. Fig. 508 presents four soapstone
dishes, two of them dipper-like in form. The three upper ones are
finished and polished, while the lower specimen has been pecked into
shape but not polished.

[Illustration:

FIG. 508. (S. about 1–5.) Soapstone bowls. Collection of Peabody
Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
]

The quarries from which these dishes are obtained are found in New
England, in the Potomac region, and in the South. Professor Holmes made
them the subject of study. It seems that the natives worked around the
mass they wished to remove and shaped it _in situ_, cutting a deep
trench entirely around it, and when the dish had been brought into high
relief, they cut away the narrow base and removed it. Numbers of
unfinished dishes in position in the original ledge have been reported.

[Illustration:

FIG. 509. (S. 1–6.) A portion of the collection of J. G. Crawford,
Albany, Oregon. The peculiar objects above the central mortar are
interesting. Similar ones have been found in the far Northwest. The
purpose of such is at present a mystery. These were found in various
portions of Oregon, not far above the mouth of the Columbia River.
]

Widespread as was the use of steatite in the East for mortars and dishes
and of harder materials for mortars in which heavy grinding was to be
done, it is in the Southwest, California, and the Rocky Mountains where
more millstones are found than elsewhere in the United States. The
Southwestern metate (see Fig. 515) is well known to students of
archæology. All the museums have on exhibition hundreds of these, and we
have in our museum at Andover, a hundred or more of them. They vary from
small slabs, presenting a flat surface, to deeply worn rectangular and
square specimens, some of which are two feet in breadth and will weigh a
hundred pounds. These were in common use about the pueblos and
cliff-houses. In our museum and elsewhere there are metates that have
seen service for so many years that they are worn entirely through.

On these metates a flat stone, known as a mano stone, was used, taking
the place of the Eastern roller or bell-pestle. It was pushed back and
forth with the hand. In the Southwest, California, and Mexico some of
the metates are highly ornamented, and have legs, which raised the body
of the stone several inches from the ground. When I visited the Chaco
Group, in 1897, I saw several hundred metates scattered about on the
surface near the ruins. In explorations near Phœnix, Arizona, in
November, 1897, to June, 1898, I collected more than ninety good
metates. In Kelley Cavern, the Ozark Mountains, which was explored by
Dr. Charles Peabody and myself in May, 1908, we found thirty-seven stone
mills in one cave alone, and that cavern was no more than two hundred
feet across the front and about a hundred feet deep.

Mr. J. B. Lewis of Petaluma, California, now deceased, sent me the
photograph of a remarkable collection of California mortars. After
shipping generous quantities to various scientific institutions in the
East, Mr. Lewis still had several hundred in his possession. He
constructed an outdoor cabinet of plank and placed thereon a portion of
his collection. Fig. 511 illustrates a number of his specimens. It will
be observed, by comparison with the figure of Mr. Lewis who is standing
at the right of his cabinet, that the largest mortars at the bottom are
not upright but are placed at an angle. These mortars range from two
feet in diameter to those about a foot high. Many of these weigh as much
as seventy-five or a hundred pounds each. The smaller mortars are on the
upper rows.

Mr. Lewis, during the last two years of his life, wrote me many
interesting letters regarding the character of the various stone objects
found in his region. He was a keen observer, and during his fifty years
of residence at Petaluma he became thoroughly familiar with the various
prehistoric sites in that part of California. While I make substantial
quotations from these letters, I change his language slightly:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 510. (S. varying.) Stone bowls from a cache near San Fernando,
California.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 511. Collection of J. B. Lewis, Petaluma, California. Mr. Lewis,
who stands at the right, was fifty years in making this collection.
]

“On Sonoma Mountain, seven miles from Petaluma, is a depression in the
hills in which the winter rains are collected, forming a large lake or
lagoon of two hundred acres, called by the Indians Lagoon La Jara,
formerly covered with a tall growth of tules, the home of geese and
ducks and blackbirds in their season. Some forty years since, it was
drained and brought under cultivation. On ploughing, stones were brought
to light called ‘ceremonial sinkers,’ plumbs, etc. As time passes fewer
are found, until now only three or four a year.”

Mr. Lewis, who lived within two miles of the lake, procured half of the
objects thus discovered. Many of them are shown in Fig. 383. Another
collector has secured four hundred. In the summer the lagoon was dry or
nearly so. There was neither inlet nor outlet and no fish lived in its
waters. Therefore the stones were not made use of as sinkers.

[Illustration:

FIG. 512. (S. 1–10.) From the collection of H. K. Deisher, Kutztown,
Pennsylvania.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 513. (S. 1–4.) Long effigy pestle. Butler farm, northwest part of
Turkey Hill, Ipswich. From the collection of Peabody Museum, Salem,
Massachusetts.
]

“When I came here in the early fifties, there used large numbers of
Indians go by my ranch in the fall, down to the creek to catch sturgeon
and dry them, and they always went back by the way of the lagoon and
stayed a day or two and had some kind of a pow-wow. After the lagoon was
drained, they never came back.”

Mr. Lewis, on arrival in California, heard that a numerous tribe living
near Petaluma was practically exterminated by some contagious disease.
He believed that the Indians returning annually to hold ceremonies at
the lagoon belonged to this tribe.

[Illustration:

FIG. 514. (S. 1–4.) From the collection of Beloit College, Beloit,
Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 515. (S. 1–6.) From the collection of W. A. Holmes, Chicago,
Illinois.
]

It is interesting to note that during the years of Mr. Lewis’s
observations he found that the mortars with straight sides and flat
bottoms occurred near Sonoma Mountain, where boulders of basalt are
common. But in the sandy hills west of Petaluma pointed or urn-shaped
mortars, such as are shown on the top shelf of Fig. 511, are found in
some numbers. It is clear, he states, that the various types of mortars
were confined to certain regions. He knew of only two mortars found in
Indian graves. In one instance, where a mortar was buried with an
Indian, the skull was pierced by a flint point. Near Santa Rosa, twenty
miles from his home, a large spring was cleaned out, and in it were
found numerous objects of stone. Mr. Lewis states that he never found a
mortar and pestle placed together. They were usually found separate.
While the plummets and so-called sinkers are found scattered throughout
this region, yet nine tenths of his collection came from the lagoon
previously mentioned. Not only has he found mortars upon the surface,
but specimens have been dug up from a depth of twelve feet in the
ground. The cavities may be large or small, independent of size of
mortar. Of his entire collection of two hundred and fifty mortars he
states that seventy-five had holes in the bottom, seventy-five were more
or less broken, fifty were considered fair specimens, and about fifty
were perfect. The late Mr. Horatio N. Rust, an observer of much
experience in California archæology, described an interesting cache of
stone bowls some years ago.[18] I quote his article:—

“Mr. H. W. Hunt, of San Fernando, California, has been tilling for
several years the site of an old Indian village, and in doing so has
unearthed fragments of not fewer than thirty Indian bowls, but no whole
specimen. A short time ago, while ploughing, he encountered a stone, and
in digging it out discovered a cache of twenty-one sandstone bowls (see
Fig. 510) carefully packed together in a space not exceeding four or
five feet. On Mr. Hunt’s invitation I personally examined the contents
of this interesting cache, finding the bowls quite symmetrical and all
except one in perfect condition.

“These utensils measure about ten inches in greatest diameter, and from
seven to ten inches across the bottom; they are about one and one fourth
inches in thickness at the rim. A shallow groove is cut in the edge of
the rim of each vessel, in which shell beads are set in asphaltum. About
midway in the inside of one of the bowls a series of holes, about one
fourth of an inch in depth and diameter, is cut, and in each of these
holes a shell bead is set in asphaltum. These inset beads represent the
only attempt at ornamentation.

“After carefully examining the field in which these vessels were found I
reached the conclusion that the thirty broken bowls indicated the former
occupancy of the site by a village of considerable size, and that they
had been broken by an enemy rather than through use. I was led also to
the belief that the villagers had been killed and many of their vessels
destroyed, but that the predatory enemy had failed to find the cache of
bowls, which had been secreted by their owners in fear of such an
attack.

“This conclusion was reached in view of the experience gained from the
examination of many village-sites in California. On one occasion, at a
site south of San Jacinto Mountain, I discovered twenty-five stone
mortars, within the radius of a mile, all of which had been broken by
violence, evidently by an enemy for the purpose of depriving the
villagers of an important means of preparing food. Beside these mortars,
I found a slab of green talc, about eight by fifteen inches, and three
slabs of sandstone of about the same width and length and one and one
fourth inches in thickness. Fragments of similar sandstone slabs have
been found near the same site, but no pestles or other artifacts that
had not been broken, a circumstance that would seem to indicate that
everything had been either stolen or deliberately destroyed.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 516. (S. 1–5.) From the collection of James A. Barr, Stockton,
California.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 517. (S. about 1–6.) Found at Riverside, Rhode Island. Material:
greenish black slate. Collection of S. R. Turner, Riverside, Rhode
Island.
]

On the top shelf of Mr. Lewis’s exhibit in Fig. 511 are pointed mortars
such as I have placed under classification “C.” Usually these are of
volcanic rock, worked down light and rather thin. They were pointed in
order that they might be thrust into soft earth, or swampy places where
certain reeds and roots abounded, they being held in position by the
nature of the soil, while the women ground grain.

[Illustration:

FIG. 518. (S. 1–3.) Stone bowl from the collection of H. S. Hurlbutt,
Libertyville, Illinois.
]

Fig. 517 is a long, beautifully polished, roller pestle, about
twenty-six inches in length and owned by Mr. S. R. Turner, Riverside,
Rhode Island, and Fig. 513 is a roller pestle with an effigy head carved
at one end. It is impossible to determine what this effigy represents.
This is from the Salem collection, was found near Ipswich, and is about
thirty inches in length.

Doubtless there are not a few objects classed as mortars which were food
receptacles. I have included several in this chapter. The conditions
under which some of these more highly finished bowls are found leads us
to admit ignorance of their true meaning.

Fig. 518 is a delicate stone bowl from Illinois; Fig. 519 is a limestone
bowl, shown one third size. This was found in the oblong mound of the
Hopewell Group in 1901, by our survey. Neither of these specimens is to
be classed as a mortar. Both are highly finished, and the limestone bowl
is an unusual specimen, nothing just like it having been found in
America. We cannot imagine that these were made use of to contain
ordinary food.

[Illustration:

FIG. 519. (S. about 1–3.) Stone bowl of twelve or thirteen pounds
weight. Cut from solid limestone. It is somewhat like the type of
bowls found on the Pacific Coast, and nothing comparable to it has
been discovered in our Ohio Valley mounds.
]

Mr. C. E. Brown writes of his region:—

“A small number of stone pestles have been found in Wisconsin, and a few
hollowed-out stones which appear to have been employed as mortars. The
Wisconsin savages employed wooden mortars for crushing their corn and
wild rice. These were hollows cut into the side of logs or made of
sections of logs hollowed out. Wooden pestles were employed with these.
At Lake Winnebago and elsewhere in the Fox River Valley are large
boulders upon the tops of which are shallow depressions in which the
Indians of recent times are known to have ground corn.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 519 _A_. (S. 1–7.) Two are of steatite, and one of limestone.
They were found in eastern Kentucky. From the collection of B. H.
Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

There are no special conclusions to be reached with reference to mortars
and pestles. An inspection, in any public museum, of collections from
the Northwest Coast, Pacific Coast, and New England will acquaint the
readers with the fact that both the mortar and the pestle were sometimes
highly ornamented and worked into fanciful forms. Fig. 516, a remarkable
metate from Professor Barr’s collection, is an illustration of the point
I have in mind. Metates of this character are common in Mexico and
Central America. Those who have studied symbolism see evidences of
phallic worship in many of the pestles from California and the
Northwest. The range in all tools and receptacles needed in the Indian’s
domestic science, is considerable, and covers the entire field from the
rough pebble to the effigy pestle, or the metate, almost table-like in
character.

CHAPTER XXVIII
OBJECTS OF SHELL

[Illustration:

FIG. 520. (S. 1–1.) Shell hoe from the village-site at Fort Ancient,
Ohio.
]

Aboriginal man used shell and bone for a variety of purposes. He
frequently made of these substances the same forms that he did in flint
or stone, and if one were classifying under use, one would include,
under arrow-points, not only those of flint, but of bone and shell as
well. The same is true of the beads and of flat ornaments, which may be
of shell, or bone, quite as often as of stone. But since we have begun
to classify these objects according to material, it is necessary to
place under the above head many artifacts that would naturally fall into
another subdivision, were we to ignore materials.

[Illustration:

FIG. 521. (S. 1–4.) Collection of B. Beasley, Montgomery, Alabama.
]

Generally throughout North America shells were made use of for
ornamentation. Shell beads are as widely distributed as chipped
implements and more generally found throughout the United States than
pottery. In fact, in most cemeteries, mounds, and cliff-houses where
human burials occur, are strings of beads of various kinds and sizes. I
might enumerate all the shells found in both fresh water and salt, and
made use of by the natives in America, but this is hardly required.
However, were I writing more extendedly upon shell objects, it would be
necessary to give all the names. These are purposely omitted.

The classification of shell objects is as follows:—

1. For domestic service.

2. For ornamentation.

Under No. 1 there are the following subdivisions:—

a. Shells used as hoes. (Fig. 520.)

b. As club-heads. (None shown.)

c. As cups and bowls. (Fig. 522.)

Under No. 2:

a. As small beads, round or cylindrical. (Figs. 521, 521 _A_.)

b. Ear and nose ornaments, circular or oval. (Fig. 523.)

c. Hairpins. (Fig. 525.)

d. Bracelets and finger-rings. (None shown.)

e. Engraved shell gorgets. (Figs. 530 to 535.)

f. Pendants and unknown forms. (Figs. 524, 529.)

g. Effigies. (Fig. 537.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 521 _A_. (S. 1–2.) Beads from Trigg County, at mouth of Little
River, where it enters the Cumberland River, Kentucky. Bennett H.
Young’s collection.
]

The larger shells of the Atlantic Coast between the mouth of the Potomac
and the Mississippi were employed by the Florida, South Carolina, and
Louisiana Indians as digging-tools, heads to clubs, etc.

Mr. Clarence B. Moore, during the course of his extensive explorations
in Florida and Alabama, found great quantities of large shells which had
been used as domestic tools. It is well known that the shell mounds of
Florida equal in size many mounds of earth or stone, farther north.

[Illustration:

FIG. 522. (S. 1–4.) Large shells, Hopewell Mounds, Ohio.
]

In the North, the fresh-water unio shells were made general use of as
hoes, such as is shown in Fig. 520, which was found at Fort Ancient,
Ohio, on the village-site along the banks of the Miami River. It was
much easier to perforate these shells and use them as hoes than to work
out flint or wooden hoes. Persons who explore ancient sites find them in
the ash-pits. The edges are always battered, or worn smooth, proving
that they were of importance as agricultural implements.

Short, heavy shells were perforated and fastened to clubs for weapons
and digging-tools. Moore describes and illustrates many of these.[19]

[Illustration:

FIG. 523. (S. 1–1.) The typical shell nose and ear ornaments are shown
in this illustration. These six were found by W. C. Mills on the
Baum Village-Site, Ross County, Ohio.
]

Bits of shell may have been set in handles, for use as “swords,” after
the manner of South Sea natives.

However, while shells were useful for other purposes, yet it was for
ornamentation that most of them were used.

Fig. 521, from the collection of Mr. B. Beasley, Montgomery, Alabama, is
an illustration of small disc beads in the centre, larger beads about
the margin and the string of rude and irregular shell beads enclosing
the rectangular exhibit referred to. This is about one fourth size.
Shell beads range in size from minute ones as small as those on the
black background in the centre of the picture, to others three inches in
diameter. Mr. Clarence B. Moore found shell beads as large as walnuts in
his Florida and Alabama explorations.

Fig. 521 _A_ shows a number of various shell beads, together with a few
stone beads from mounds and graves at the mouth of Little River,
Kentucky.

Large numbers of pearl beads, have been found in the altar mounds of the
Scioto Valley, Ohio, and in the South. De Soto’s narrative states that
the Indians, in 1540–42, possessed many bushels of these pearls. Some
were of beautiful form and high lustre. All of these would have been
very valuable, but for the fact that the natives drilled a hole through
each one, thus, from our point of view, ruining them.

It has been estimated that the pearl beads found in the altars of the
Hopewell Group, when new and undrilled, were worth upwards of a million
dollars.

Practically all shell ornaments were made from the larger unio shells
and also from the busycon and pyrula shells of Florida and the
Carolinas. Fig. 522 presents one of these shells as yet uncut which was
found in a mound at the Hopewell Group and another which has been cut
down into the form of a large dipper or drinking-vessel.

[Illustration:

FIG. 524. (S. varying.) Shell ornaments from California. Peabody
Museum collection, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 525. (S. 3–7.) This figure illustrates some of the shell
hairpins, rather rare in Ohio, but frequently found in the South.
These are from the collection of Mr. John T. Reeder, Houghton,
Michigan, and were found in Alabama and Tennessee. It would be
impossible to drill with these, and by common consent they are
called hairpins.
]

The ornamentation on large shell gorgets is complicated and
characteristic. I am not sufficiently familiar with California shell
gorgets to state whether they are ever engraved. Fig. 529, from
Professor Barr’s collection, presents as highly developed gorgets as I
have seen from the Pacific Coast. It is in the mounds and stone graves
of the Cumberland and Tennessee valleys that the art in engraving or
decorating gorgets seems to have reached its height. In Figs. 530, 531,
532, 533. 534, and 535 are presented beautiful specimens from the
collections of Mr. John T. Reeder, Colonel Young, and the Smithsonian
Institution.

[Illustration:

FIG. 526. (S. 1–2.) An engraved shell gorget found in the glacial kame
burials in northern Ohio. This is shown half size and is a
remarkable specimen. The material is from a large fresh-water unio.
]

Professor William H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution has studied
shell objects more than any one else in this country. I quote from his
description of Fig. 534:[20]

[Illustration:

FIG. 527. (1–2.) Two small shell ornaments from the collection of John
T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan. These were found in a mound on Long
Island, Tennessee. The one to the right is especially interesting in
that the body of the shell is cut out, forming the bars of the
cross. Such gorgets are exceedingly rare.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 528. (S. 1–2.) Four flat pendants found in Pilot Mound, Manitoba,
by Henry Montgomery. Two copper beads and one shell bead, Pilot
Mound, Manitoba. Two bone whistles, respectively nine and ten inches
long, from mound near Sourisford, Manitoba.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 529. (S. 1–3.) James A. Barr collection, Stockton, California.
]

“Among the many interesting relics obtained from mounds and
burial-places in the Mississippi Valley are the engraved shell gorgets,
a number of which are now preserved in our museums. The most recent
addition to this class of objects was obtained by the National Museum
from Mr. C. A. Nelson of Eddyville, Lyon County, Kentucky, and comes
from a burial-place encountered in opening a stone-quarry near
Eddyville. It is a symmetric saucer-shaped gorget, Fig. 534, five inches
in diameter and made apparently from the expanded lip of a conch shell
(_Busycon perversum_). It is unusually well preserved, both faces
retaining something of the original high polish of the ornament. Two
perforations placed near the margin served as a means of suspension. The
back or convex side is quite plain, while the face is occupied by the
engraving of a human figure which extends entirely across the disc. It
will be seen by reference to the illustration that this figure is
practically identical in many respects with others already
published.[21] It is executed in firmly incised lines and is partially
inclosed by a border of nine concentric lines. The position of the
figure is that of a discus-thrower. The right hand holds a discoidal
object, the arm being thrown back as if in the act of casting the disc.
The left hand extends outward to the margin of the shell and firmly
grasps a wand-like object having plumes attached at the upper end, the
lower end being peculiarly marked, and bent inward across the border
lines. The face is turned to the left; the right knee is bent and rests
on the ground, while the left foot is set forward as it would be in the
act of casting the disc. The features are boldly outlined; the eye is
diamond-shaped, as is usual in the delineations of this character in the
mound region. A crest or crown representing the hair surmounts the head;
the lower lobe of the ear contains a disc from which falls a long
pendant ornament, and three lines representing paint or tattoo marks
extend across the cheek from the ear to the mouth. A bead necklace hangs
down over the chest and the legs and arms have encircling ornaments. The
lower part of the body is covered with an apron-like garment attached to
the waistband, and over this hangs what appears to be a pouch with
pendant ornaments. The moccasins are of the usual Indian type and are
well delineated. A study of this figure strongly suggests the idea that
it must represent a disc-thrower engaged, possibly, in playing the
well-known game of chunky.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 530. (S. 2–3.) Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan.
]

Regarding Fig. 535 of Colonel Young’s collection, Professor Holmes
writes me, under date of March 28, 1910, as follows:—

“The shell gorget from Lincoln County, Kentucky, is exceptionally large,
being six inches in diameter. The design is engraved on the concave
surface and represents a double-headed eagle treated in a very
conventional manner. The heads are well drawn, but the bodies are
simplified so that two legs only with characteristic talons are shown.
The tail is single. The work corresponds in style to similar
delineations on clay and other materials throughout a large part of the
Gulf States, as shown fully in the works of Mr. Clarence B. Moore. It is
not possible to say whether or not the duplication of the heads had any
significance, or whether it is the result simply of the common practice
in primitive art of employing modified natural forms to accommodate the
spaces to be embellished. That the eagle, however, had some special
significance with the peoples concerned, may be taken for granted.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 531. (S. 2–3.)

Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan. The upper figure is
from a mound on Long Island, Tennessee River, Jackson County,
Alabama. The lower figure is from a mound at the mouth of
Chickamauga Creek, Hamilton County, Tennessee.

FIG. 532. (S. 2–3.)

Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan. The upper figure is
from a mound at Citico Furnace, Chattanooga, Tennessee. The lower
figure is from a mound at Long Island, near Bridgeport, Jackson
County, Alabama.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 533. (S. 1–3.) Shell gorgets from Kentucky. Bennett H. Young’s
collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 534. (S. 2–3.) Shell gorget from Lyon County, Kentucky. United
States National Museum collection.
]

Fig. 533 presents six beautiful engraved gorgets from Colonel Young’s
collection, who has in his exhibit as many engraved shells as any other
collector in this country. For many years he has interested himself in
the archæology of Kentucky and has preserved thousands of specimens. No.
3 in this plate is shown in a larger form in Fig. 535. No. 4 is one of
the rare gorgets with the design of the cross worked out by cutting
entirely through the shell. No. 6 is practically the same as the
right-hand specimen in Fig. 530, only that it is worked in higher
relief. The exact meaning of these carvings is unknown at the present
time.

[Illustration:

FIG. 535. (S. 2–3.) Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville,
Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 536. (S. 1–1.) Shell frog, two shell effigies, onyx bead, and
effigy fish (jade?). From the large ruin near Mesa, Arizona.
]

The natives living in the great pueblos of the Salado Valley, southern
Arizona, and in fact throughout that entire region, made use of a great
many shells found along the shores of the Gulf of California. Not only
did they make ordinary beads, after the manner of the Northern Indians,
but they also made finger-rings and bracelets. These have been so
frequently illustrated, I have purposely left them out. They worked all
manner of effigies out of shell, as is shown in Figs. 536–37, from the
collection at Andover. These specimens were obtained by me while
exploring in 1897 and 1898 for Mr. R. S. Peabody, founder of the
Department at Andover.

There are also shell frogs inlaid with turquoise—real mosaic work. Dr.
Fewkes has illustrated some effigies of this nature, in his reports, and
Dr. Pepper found numbers of them at the great Chaco Group of ruins,
northern New Mexico. When the first shell frogs were discovered by the
late Frank Hamilton Cushing, some of the archæologists went so far as to
say that Cushing had made these, but now so many of them have been found
that Cushing’s original contentions are verified.

[Illustration:

FIG. 537. (S. 1–2 to 1–3.) Shell objects from Arizona.
]

It is surprising, the skill of prehistoric man in carving. When Squier
and Davis made their exploration of the mounds of the Mississippi
Valley, they found many highly carved and ornamented pipes. Years
afterwards, observers who were unjustly skeptical endeavored to prove
that these were made with rat-tail files or were the work of white
traders. Since the time of Squier and Davis, even more remarkable
carvings, work in copper, intricate designs on shell, and various
tablets have been unearthed, in numbers, and by men against whom no
charge could be made.

It will be seen by an inspection of the few shell objects that I have
illustrated that, notwithstanding the lack of iron tools, aboriginal man
in America was no mean artist.

CHAPTER XXIX
OBJECTS OF BONE

Bone objects served practical purposes more than they did ornamental
uses. Of course some bones were worked into ornaments, but more of them
were in use as utility tools than otherwise. The classification of bone
tools is a subject to which one must give no little thought, for the
material ranges from ordinary beads to highly decorated and grooved
cylinders, or tubes. Therefore, I am not fully satisfied with the
classification I herewith present, and hope at a future date to improve
upon it.

1. Utility and domestic purposes.

(a) Bone awls. (Figs. 538–39.)

(b) Harpoons. (Figs. 541–42.)

(d) Bone fish-hooks. (Figs. 546–48.)

(e) Tool-handles. (Figs. 549–50.)

(f) Bone scrapers and celts. (Fig. 551.)

(g) Arrow-shaft reducers. (Fig. 554.)

(h) Bone chipping-tools. (Fig. 41.)

2. Bone objects for decorative purposes.

(a) Bone beads. (Fig. 546.)

(b) Bone pendants. (Fig. 556.)

(d) Tracings on bone. (Figs. 564–65.)

(e) Bone effigies. (Figs. 557, 567.)

Bone objects in the United States were in widespread use, and they
served many purposes. In the Mississippi Valley more of them were worked
into beads and awls than into anything else, but on the Great Plains
they were made use of for many purposes. The tips of antlers were
sharpened and fastened on arrows. In the Mandan country, North Dakota,
and elsewhere in the West where stone was scarce, the bones of the
buffalo served as clubs, the shoulder blades as digging-tools, and the
ribs were polished and ground to an edge and used as knives and
scraping-tools. The teeth of carnivorous animals were mounted as
ornaments, and long slender bones of the smaller animals were cut into
beads. Bone and horn spoons were doubtless common in all parts of the
United States.

[Illustration:

FIG. 538. (S. 1–1.) Typical bone awls from the collection of S. D.
Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 539. (S. 2–3.) Blunt-pointed awls found with burials. Baum
Village-Site, Ohio. William C. Mills’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 540. (S. about 3–4.) To the left, bone awls made from the
tarsometatarsus of the wild turkey. To the right, bone needles. All
from the Harness Mound, Scioto Valley, Ohio.
]

A larger percentage of bone awls have been recovered from village-sites
than of other objects in bone, excepting beads. The ash-pits of
village-sites preserved practically everything encompassed by them
because of the preservative quality of ashes. Therefore, I have always
believed that the proportion of bone awls to other things is no
criterion as to the use of bone among the aborigines. In the caves of
the Ozarks, during three seasons of exploration, we recovered upwards of
a hundred bone awls. More than fifty were taken from the ashes of Kelley
Cavern alone. It must be remembered that these caves, as is also true of
the village-sites of central United States and the South, mark the
residence place of natives where, perhaps, women predominated. Assuming
that because of wars there were usually more women than men,—and I think
that the early American history will bear out this statement,—the
domestic arts were in excess of the other arts; and even if the persons
engaged in domestic science were in the minority there would naturally
be more cooking, garment-making, weaving, and general domestic science
in vogue in a village or a cave or a cliff-dwelling than elsewhere. It
is not surprising, therefore, that awls and hammer-stones, pestles and
mortars, rough axes and hoes should predominate in such places. An
unknown number of bone effigies and bone tools that must have been made
and used by the ancient people have disappeared, because as in the case
of textile fabrics they were not preserved unless buried in ashes.

Aboriginal man was very saving. When he killed a deer or a bear he not
only made use of the meat and the hide, but also of the bones and
sinews. The proof of such economy lies in any large village-site, where
one finds in the ashes bones of practically every bird, animal, and fish
formerly in the neighborhood. And these bones have been broken, or cut,
or sawed. Some of them indicate the beginning of workmanship, many of
them are broken to extract the marrow, and others are perfect. The
exhibit is just such as one would expect from the camp-site of savages.
After the feast was over and the bones cast out, in the ensuing days,
when these bones had become more or less dry, the man, the woman, or
perhaps the boy, gathered them up and worked them into the forms
presented in this chapter.

The use of bones for harpoons was widespread. In fact no substance is
more convenient. The skeletal remains of numerous animals, birds, and
fish furnished the Indians with bones of various sizes and shapes, and
it is quite likely that such bones as could be made use of were stored
away, and that the aborigines selected the bone suited to their purpose
and went to work on it to manufacture the harpoon, or the awl, or the
ornament. Harpoons seem to have been more in use in the North than in
the South, and more are found in the St. Lawrence basin, Canada, and
northern New England, and New York State, than elsewhere in the United
States. The same is true of the Eskimo country, where bone
harpoon-points are very common. Illustrations 538, 541, 542, present
four different bone harpoons.

[Illustration:

FIG. 541. (S. 2–3.) Bone harpoon. P. D. Winship’s collection, Park
Rapids, Minnesota.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 542. (S. 1–2.) (See Fig. 543 for description.)
]

[Illustration:

_Description of Figs. 542 and 543._

Objects of antler, bone, shell, and copper from North Dakota mounds:

_a._ Deer antler tines, showing perforations and notches.

_b._ Bone anklet, somewhat broken, but showing entire length in front.

_c._ Carved tine of a deer’s antler.

_d._ Bead made from the columella of a marine shell.

_e._ Pearly shell buttons or ornaments, perforated or notched; found
with the anklet shown in _b_.

_f._ Flat piece of copper coiled into a bead.

_g._ Small marine shells perforated by grinding.

_h._ Pearly shell rings, probably a portion of a necklace.

_i._ Bone fishing-spear.

From Henry Montgomery’s collection, Toronto, Canada.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 543. (S. 1–2.)
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 544. (S. 1–3.) Elk-horn spoons, from Humboldt County, California.
H. K. Deisher’s collection.
]

It is not difficult to explain the preponderance of harpoons in the
North and the scarcity of them in the South. They are essentially a
cold-climate implement. In the St. Lawrence region, where they abound,
nets and traps cannot be used save during summer and fall. The winter
sets in early, and the spring is late. While fish were harpooned when on
the spawning-beds, yet most of the harpooning was done in the winter.
Even to this late date the Ojibwa Indians spear great quantities of fish
in the winter season. Pickerel, pike, muscalonge are attracted by a
moving bait. The Indian cuts a hole through the ice, and erects a small
structure to shield himself from the wind. An effigy of a fish made of
wood or bone, or in these modern times of tin, is dangled about four or
five feet beneath the ice. Large fish approach this decoy, and as they
are more sluggish in their movements in the winter, the Indian has no
difficulty in driving the spear into such one as he wishes, before it is
able to draw out of range. I suppose that the method did not vary in
ancient times. Naturally, where possible, the Indians preferred to set
nets or build fish-weirs. But practically all the nets and weirs of
ancient times have long since disappeared.

[Illustration:

FIG. 545. (S. 3–4.) This is a long spoon, badly decayed, but
sufficiently preserved for us to determine its character. It is
about six inches in length. It was found under an old building in
Salem, Massachusetts, and is in the Peabody Museum. Very few bone or
horn spoons, ladles, and dishes of the Indians remain, and yet we
know that a great many were made and used by primitive man in the
United States.
]

Fig. 541 illustrates a large, strong harpoon of bone. This spear has
several prominent barbs. The muscalonge and sturgeon of the far North
were large, strong fish and required a heavy spear to hold them. Whether
the Indians of the Lake Superior region in ancient times made use of the
spear with a detachable point, to which was attached a cord and float, I
am unable to state. Possibly they made use of devices of that sort.

In the East and the North the harder and heavier bones, such as the
horns of elk, deer, and moose, were made use of as gouges, celts, and
scrapers. Numbers of these have been found at Madisonville cemetery, in
the Little Miami Valley, ten miles north of Cincinnati, and also in the
Iroquois sites along the Mohawk River in western New York. Mr. David
Boyle, Curator of the Provincial Museum, Toronto, presents descriptions
of a number of horn implements in his publications.[22]

Bones were made use of as spoons, and ladles. Numerous examples of these
are not wanting in the museums. The longer, slender bones were ground
and polished and pointed, and may have served as hairpins and
cloak-fasteners. A splendid example of what we have considered bone
hairpins was taken from the ashes in Kelley Cavern, Arkansas. This bone
was found at a depth of five feet, and is nine inches long.

[Illustration:

FIG. 546. (S. 2–3.) Beads, arrow-points, and bone fish-hooks, from the
Mandan Village-Site, North Dakota.
]

The slender bones of turkeys and geese were often made into whistles,
the medicine-men used them, and bone tubes were frequently employed by
shamans in drawing the evil spirit from the bodies of the sick. Small
digits were worked into necklaces. Special bones of certain animals, it
is supposed, were the property of the medicine-men and were used in
their incantations. The skull of the buffalo played an important part in
the mythology except among Plains tribes. I shall not treat of that
phase of the subject in this volume, but refer readers to the list of
titles in the Bibliography, under Buffalo; which will be found to
contain full descriptions of the ceremonies connected with the buffalo.
In another part of this work (Volume I, pages 208–09) I refer to the
importance of the buffalo to Indians through an extent of territory
fifteen hundred by one thousand miles.

[Illustration:

FIG. 547. (S. 2–3.) Stages of fish-hook manufacture. Gartner Mound,
Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 548. (S. 1–1.) Typical fish-hooks found in the Baum Village-Site,
Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 549. (S. about 1–3.) Andover collection. The long bones of large
animals were cut or sawed into proper lengths, the openings in the
ends enlarged and flint knives inserted. This figure presents eight
such tool-handles. The two at the top were found in a gravel-pit in
central Ohio, together with human skeletons. Flint knives lay at the
end of each of these two bones. The decayed bone shown in the lower
part of the picture was also found in a gravel burial and a slender
flint knife rested against it. The position of the knives and the
bones leaves me to conclude that these bones were knife-handles.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 550. (S. 1–3.) Bone tool-handles from the villages along the
Upper Missouri River. Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 551. (S. 1–3.) A series of bone celts from the Mandan Site, North
Dakota.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 552. (S. 1–2.) Bone objects from Mandan Sites. Portions of
head-dresses. (See page 154.)
]

Fig. 546 is interesting in that it shows not only bone beads to the
left, but also three bone arrow-points (top row in the centre) and
fish-hooks in process of manufacture. Professor William C. Mills
published a valuable paper on the manufacture of fish-hooks.[23]

[Illustration:

FIG. 552 _A_. (S. 1–3.) How the Mandans made bracelets and
head-dresses. (See pages 154, 155.)
]

Professor Mills found in the ash-beds of the Baum Village-Site bones
which had been cut down until a narrow rim on both sides remained. I
show Professor Mills’s finds in Figs. 547–48.

Professor Mills’s finds of unfinished as well as completed fish-hooks
enabled his museum to secure the best series of such objects in the
United States.

Having split the bones and ground them down until they were thin, the
Indians would cut through the objects near either end, thus producing
from a split bone two fish-hooks. Or, the entire bone yielded four
fish-hooks. One side is cut long, the other short, thus forming the
shank and bar. In Fig. 546 the entire process is shown. The split bone,
to the right, the broken bone above the perfect fish-hook. To complete
fish-hooks it was necessary to round the base, sharpen the point, cut
out a little more space between the shank and the point, and notch the
shank in order that the line might be attached.

[Illustration:

FIG. 553. (S. 1–2.) Mandan bone ornaments.
]

_Mandan Bone Implements_

Something over twenty years ago, when I was living in Ohio, I received a
communication from Mr. E. R. Steinbrueck of Mandan, North Dakota. He
wished to begin the study of American archæology, to devote special
attention to the ancient village-site of the Mandan Indians, made famous
by George Catlin’s paintings and descriptions. I wrote to Mr.
Steinbrueck a number of letters advising him. During the ensuing years,
Mr. Steinbrueck spent many seasons in the exploration of the Mandan and
other sites. His collection of bone and stone implements, amounted to
about 8000 specimens.

[Illustration:

FIG. 554. (S. 1–3.) Mandan bone objects. This figure represents some
perforated bones from Mandan sites. Many similar to these have been
found at Madisonville. The holes are polished on the edges, and
aside from the theory that they were used to straighten
arrow-shafts, no one seems to know the exact purpose of them. A few
are shown in Fig. 555. Peabody Museum collection, from Madisonville,
Ohio.
]

Mr. Steinbrueck wished to have his collection preserved in a fireproof
building, and as it was through me he began collecting, he wished
Phillips Academy to purchase his exhibit. Through the kindness of
Professor Edward H. Williams, Jr., of Woodstock, Vermont, this
disposition of the collection was brought about, and the collection is
to-day on exhibition in our museum. I call particular attention to this
Mandan exhibit, for the reason that it is, so far as I am aware, the
best and largest collection of bone implements exhumed from one site, in
America.

Suitable stone seems to have been scarce in the Mandan country, and the
natives made use of the shoulder blades, ribs, and other heavy bones of
buffalo, elk, and deer for various purposes, and these strong bones
served them quite as well as would stone. An inspection of the
illustrations of various Mandan objects will acquaint readers with the
wealth of material secured by Mr. Steinbrueck.

I call particular attention to Figs. 550 to 555. In Fig. 550 are shown
heavy bone handles in which were inserted small stone celts employed as
scraping- and cutting-tools. This type was common on the Plains and has
been described by Professor Mason and others. The handle is so strong
that it would last almost a lifetime, and the Indian women needed but to
sharpen the inserted celt, rather than to make a new handle.

[Illustration:

FIG. 555. (S. 1–5.) This presents a bone hairpin, a fish-hook, a flute
and harpoon, two bone celts, a perforated antler of an elk, and a
long bone partially cut into bits, all of which were found in the
graves at Madisonville, Ohio. Peabody Museum collection, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
]

The figure of the bone celts (551) shows that nearly all of them were
hollowed after the manner of Eastern stone gouges. The second specimen
from the top is highly polished on the edge and there are eight places
where notches have been worn into the bone. Similar wearing is noticed
on the lower specimens.

The Mandans raised much corn, beans, and squashes, and the large
shoulder blades of the buffalo and elk were made use of by these Indians
as spades and hoes. There are more than one hundred of them in our
collection.

[Illustration:

FIG. 556. (S. 1–2.) Mandan bone ornaments.
]

Mr. Steinbrueck, at my request, wrote me at considerable length and sent
me several books of field-notes. Particularly interesting are his
descriptions of objects shown in Figs. 552, 552 _A_, and 553. I quote
from his letter:—

“After a number of years of continuous researches in the ancient Indian
village-sites on or about the Heart River and along the Missouri River,
I have gradually learned to read the purpose, the use, and also, in some
instances, the manufacture of certain horn and bone implements and
ornaments of the Mandan Indians.”

It would appear that the late J. V. Brower and Rev. G. L. Wilson and Mr.
Steinbrueck made explorations in common during several seasons.

“... On our sociable excursions, we used to find three-cornered pieces
of elk-horn (Fig. 552) which showed considerable work. They were long
and pointed, had a round base, showed the incision of a sharp instrument
along the edges, were scraped at both sides; in short, seemed to be
shaped for some purpose, which we could not guess. Probably they were
intended for some kind of an awl, or some other object of use or
ornament. It was strange, though, that we found such quantities of them
and all in the same state of more or less finish, and still we never
found an implement of a shape similar to these peculiar triangular
pieces of horn. We called them ‘unfinished implements of horn, purpose
unknown.’”

[Illustration:

FIG. 557. (S. 1–2.) Bone ornaments and effigies. Three of these may
represent goose heads. The bone to the right is ridged, and on the
elevation are notches.
]

After Mr. Brower returned East, and Rev. Mr. Wilson moved away from
Mandan, Mr. Steinbrueck continued investigations, and after several
years had passed, came to the conclusion that the triangular pieces were
discarded objects, obtained during the process of manufacture of other
forms. Mr. Steinbrueck has drawn a series of outlines conveying his
ideas as to the manufacture of these objects, which I reproduce in Fig.
552 _A_. Reference to the letters in Fig. 552 _A_ will make clear Mr.
Steinbrueck’s contentions.

[Illustration:

FIG. 558. (S. 3–4.) Teeth of the opossum and raccoon. Harness Mound,
Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 559. (S. 2–3.) To the left in Fig. 559 is an arrowpoint made of
deer-horn, with a perforation for attachment to the shaft. The other
two are pendants made of ocean shell. These are from the Baum
Village-Site, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 560. (S. 1–3.)

Shell crescent. Gartner Mound, Ohio. These three figures are from the
collection of W. C. Mills.
]

“The part of the elk-horn for the bracelets was chosen just above the
first prong (_a_). The horn was scraped all around to a smooth surface.
Next, incisions were made with a flint knife, parallel to each other, up
and down the horn, to the soft inside of the horn. Thus long narrow
strips (_b_) were formed, which were easily (_c_) loosened from the
stem. Next, the inside was smoothed down and the edges rounded off.
Then, on the inside generally, not always, a groove was cut for the
easier bending (_a_). The measure of the arm or wrist was taken and a
hole bored at each end according to size of arm or wrist, and above the
holes the bracelet was cut (_e_). We found an abundance of those short
pieces (_f_). Then finally, there remained nothing to be done but soak
the straight bracelet piece, maybe in hot bear-grease, and bend it. Most
of the bracelets (_g_) are made in that shape and manner. There are also
thinner, narrower ones, without a groove and ornamented at the ends or
incised (_i-i_), maybe for the purpose of tying together. One of the
necklaces I found, and which is among the specimens at Phillips Academy,
represents a snake, one end showing the head, the other end the tail.
Perfect horn bracelets are very scarce, owing to their fragility. The
first I found was broken in many pieces. I gave it to Mr. Brower, who
was much exalted over it, saying that that was the first complete
bracelet he ever saw; and although broken, it is now restored. It is
erroneous and was a mistake to state that bracelets were made from ribs
of small animals. A test will prove the truth of my statement, that they
all are made from horn and particularly from the elk-horn.

[Illustration:

FIG. 561. (S. 2–3.) Bear-tusks in which pearl beads were inserted as
ornaments. These are cut and polished, the bases being cut squarely
off or diagonally, for what purpose is unknown. These specimens were
found in various mounds, Ross County, Ohio, as were several other
objects illustrated in this chapter.
]

“The manufacture of headgear from the buffalo, or the elk-horn, was
brought about in the same manner. The buffalo-horn or the elk-horn was
incised, after shaving smooth, from top to bottom, or _vice versa_, one
incision opposite the other, thus forming two exact counterparts. Then
they were cut or ornamented to fit the head and the taste of the wearer.
The pieces were scraped thin and smooth from both sides, and then
polished.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 562. (S. 1–1.) Dug up by W. C. Mills from Ohio mounds, as were
the specimens shown in Figs. 558 to 565.
]

I shall conclude the chapter on bone objects with some remarks from Mr.
Charles E. Brown, concerning the distribution of bone implements in the
Wisconsin-Michigan region:—

“The largest local collection of bone implements is that of Mr. S. D.
Mitchell of Green Lake. It includes harpoon-heads, awls, tubes, and
other articles obtained from a so-called ‘sacred spring’ into which it
is thought that these and other objects were cast by early savages,
probably for the purpose of propitiating some evil spirit supposed to
dwell therein.

[Illustration:

FIG. 563. (S. 1–1.) Cut bear-tusks, and tusks in which pearl beads are
inserted. From Ohio mounds.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 564. (S. 3–4.) Engraved bone, Harness Mound, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 565. (S. 1–1.) Engraved bone, Hopewell Mound, Ohio.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 566. (S. 1–1.) Engraved bone, Hopewell Mound.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 567. (S. 1–1.) Bone effigy, Hopewell Mound, Ohio.
]

“Bone implements and ornaments of these and other classes have also been
recovered from various village-sites, refuse-heaps, and mounds. Bone
awls are the most numerous. Among these are a few bone beads, scrapers,
and needles. Two ribbons, probably those of the moose, were obtained
from a mound at Eagle Corners. Both are transversely notched by cuts
along one edge. One bears thirty-four cuts, the other thirty-three. The
most casual examination ... reveals the evidence of rubbing over the
projections between the notches. Dr. Frederick Starr, who has described
these specimens, refers to them as ‘rattles,’ and states that ‘they not
only might have been used for dance-timing, but were certainly so
used.’[24] It is probable that some of our native copper perforators
were once mounted in bone or antler handles. The Winnebago Indians still
occasionally mount wire nails in handles of bone for use as perforators
in sewing buckskin. Bone awls are also occasionally found in use among
these Indians and the local Chippewa. Medicine-tubes made of sections of
bone or horn were formerly employed. Pendants made of the perforated
canine teeth of the bear are occasionally found in graves and on
camp-sites. Mr. Richard Herrmann of Dubuque has reported the finding of
two combination bone knives and spoons, several awls and arrow-points,
two eagle claw ornaments, a bone needle with part of the eye intact, and
a musical instrument from a mound near Garner, in Grant County.”

Dr. W. J. Hoffmann mentions the former use of bone fish-hooks and
notched bone arrow-shaft smoothers among the Wisconsin Menomini. For
evening strands of basswood fibre in cord-making, these Indians use the
perforated shoulder blade of a deer or other animal.[25]

“Radisson found that the early Bœuf Sioux of the upper Mississippi
Valley tipped their arrows with antler points. A few antler arrow-points
have been found in Wisconsin. These are similar to those recovered in
Ohio during the recent explorations of Dr. W. C. Mills. In the H. P.
Hamilton collection is a portion of an antler which is ornamented with
incised designs. It was found in the city of Manitowoc. In the same
collection is a small human effigy carved from a piece of antler. Other
antler objects found in Wisconsin include awls, a pendant, a tube, and
several articles the exact function of which is still undetermined. Cut
sections of antler are occasionally found on local village-sites. In the
collection of Mr. J. P. Schumacher, at Green Bay, is a pipe made of the
tip of a buffalo-horn. On its surface are several incised figures.
Pieces of the tusk of a mammoth were obtained with other articles in a
Grant County mound. Doubtless a much larger number of both bone and
antler implements will yet be found in Wisconsin. Local archæologists
have but recently turned their attention to these.”

CHAPTER XXX
OBJECTS OF COPPER

Mr. Charles E. Brown, Dean of the Museum of the Wisconsin Historical
Society, Madison, has prepared for me this chapter on copper objects.
Mr. Brown’s long association with the Milwaukee Public Museum, and his
knowledge of copper collections throughout the United States, have made
him an authority on this subject.

I have added a few concluding paragraphs to Mr. Brown’s able paper.

_The Native Copper Implements of Wisconsin_

The number of native copper articles already recovered from Wisconsin
fields, village-sites, mounds, and graves is very large, possibly
exceeding that already obtained from the balance of the United States. A
careful estimate places the total number of such articles collected in
the state up to the present time at not less than twenty thousand.

Although the collecting of these implements in Wisconsin has already
continued for nearly forty years the supply has not yet become
exhausted.

The opening to cultivation of new lands in the central and northern
portions of the state, the increase in the number of collectors, and the
more careful examination of old sites, cause each passing year to add
its large number to the total already in collections.

In an address delivered in 1876 before the Wisconsin Historical Society,
Professor James D. Butler made the statement that the Society was then
the proud possessor of 109 native copper implements. The Smithsonian
Institution then owned 30 specimens; the Wisconsin Natural History
Society of Milwaukee, 14; Dr. Increase A. Lapham, 11; Milton College, 4;
and Beloit College, 1. At the present day there are in the combined
collections of the State Historical Museum, Logan Museum at Beloit,
Milwaukee Public Museum, and of Mr. H. P. Hamilton and of Mr. S. D.
Mitchell nearly four thousand specimens.

[Illustration:

FIG. 568. (S. 1–4.) A group of copper nuggets and implements owned by
S. D. Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 569. (S. 5–8.) Copper beads and small cylinders. Collection of S.
D. Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

A very large number of other specimens are in other public and private
collections in Wisconsin and other states. To the activity of the
Wisconsin Archæological Society and of its members is due the very great
increase in recent years of the number of copper implements in local
educational institutions.

[Illustration:

FIG. 570. (S. 2–3.) Copper gorget, W. H. Ellsworth’s collection.
Copper beads, H. P. Hamilton’s collection. The gorget came from the
banks of Silver Lake, Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
]

There is evidence to show that in pioneer days a very considerable
number of such implements, their value being unappreciated, found their
way into the hands of roving pedlers and junk dealers and afterwards
into the founder’s crucible. In several institutions are implements
which have been rescued from such a fate.

[Illustration:

FIG. 571. (S. 1–2.) Copper and stone pendants from the cemetery at the
mouth of the Wabash. Andover collection.
]

Others have been found useful by their original finders and wholly or
partially destroyed.

I continue: The conclusion now universally accepted among archæologists
is that there is no reason for attributing the working of the copper
deposits or fabrication of the implements to any other people than the
Indians. The early explorers found both the northern and southern tribes
in this country using implements and ornaments of native copper often in
common with those of stone. From South America almost to Canada various
travellers refer to this metal being in the possession of or employed by
the natives. Many of these accounts have been so often quoted by writers
on North American archæology that they are entirely familiar to the
student, and there is therefore no necessity of repeating them here.
There is no doubt that some of these accounts refer to European metal
obtained from earlier visitors or traders, or possibly from shipwrecks
along the coast. Thus the natives soon became quite proficient in
fashioning it into articles adapted or better adapted to their needs
than the ruder articles which they then employed.

[Illustration:

FIG. 572. (S. 1–2.) Copper ornament and discs from the Hopewell Group,
]

Ohio.

It is equally certain that other accounts refer to the native metal or
to objects fashioned therefrom.

[Illustration:

FIG. 573. (S. 7–8.) Copper axe, Harness Mound, Ohio. Professor Mills
states: “This axe was taken from a mound belonging to a group eight
miles south of Chillicothe. Both sides of the object are greatly
corroded and covered with a finely woven fabric. Beneath the fabric
there seems to have been the skin of some short-haired animal. The
axe was found near the left knee of an uncremated skeleton.”
]

Whether the working of the copper deposits or the fabrication of copper
implements in this section of the country, thought to have been begun at
least several centuries before, was discontinued before the coming of
the white man, or whether the industry was continued or at least to some
extent resumed by the descendants of the pre-Columbian miners and
artificers during and after his intrusion, is still in dispute. It is
doubtful whether this matter will ever be satisfactorily settled.

The accounts of the Jesuits, as given in the “Relations,” give the
impression that while the Wisconsin Indians of that period were
evidently familiar with the sources of the metal, they regarded it with
superstition and employed it only in a reverential way. Radisson,
however, found native copper ornaments in use among the Bœuf (or
Buffalo) band of Dakota, in Minnesota in 1661–62. Alexander Henry, as a
result of his visit to Lake Superior in a later day, stated that the
Indians there obtained copper for the manufacture of implements and
ornaments. In recent times, Indian agents testified to the use of copper
implements among the Wisconsin Winnebago and Chippewa. Native copper
implements have also occasionally been recovered from local mounds,
where they were found in association with metal kettles, glass beads,
and other articles of European manufacture.

[Illustration:

FIG. 574. (S. about 1–1.) From a mound on the banks of Black Snake
River, Utah. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

The evidence of the mounds and of the earlier village-sites is to the
effect that before the coming of white man the use of copper had become
quite general among the Indian tribes of the upper Mississippi Valley.

[Illustration:

FIG. 575. (S. 1–4.) Copper spuds or axes. Collection of Logan Museum,
Beloit, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 576. (S. about 1–3.) Collection of S. D. Mitchell, Ripon,
Wisconsin.
]

It is very probable that the native metal first became known to them
through the accidental discovery of small nuggets among the debris of
the glaciers, and as it quickly came into demand, was traced to its
source in the Lake Superior region. These deposits they mined, cutting
it into shapes convenient for transportation to their villages, where it
was fashioned into articles for their own use, or for the purpose of
trade with distant tribes.

Nowhere in this entire valley do copper implements, however, appear to
have entirely replaced those of stone, the use of which was continued
until quite recent times. The manufacture of copper implements doubtless
extended through several centuries. The Siouan Winnebago and Dakota of
Wisconsin, being nearest the source of supply, possessed of course the
greatest quantity. Even among them the use of copper artifacts did not
in prehistoric times equal the use of others. Among the outlying tribes
in other states copper implements were yet probably somewhat of a
luxury, when the intrusion of the Algonquian tribes into Wisconsin made
more and more difficult, and finally altogether shut out access to the
Lake Superior mines. It appears certain that the Chippewa after their
occupation of the copper region, did do at least a small amount of
digging for the metal which for purposes of trade, or for other uses,
they found of value. This continued until the arrival of the traders
laden with desirable articles caused a suspension of mining operations,
and diverted the attention of the Indian from mining to other
pursuits....

[Illustration:

FIG. 577. (S. 5–11.) Copper awls and chisels. Collection of S. D.
Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 578. (S. 1–4.) Copper axes. H. P. Hamilton’s collection, Two
Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 579. (S. about 1–2.) Copper chisels; the left and central ones
were found near Clintonville, Waupaca County, Wisconsin. The
right-hand one, near Chilton, Calumet County, Wisconsin. Milwaukee
Public Museum collection.
]

_Fabrication_

[Illustration:

FIG. 580. (S. about 1–4.) Three copper punches and seven chisels. H.
P. Hamilton’s collection, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

Our native copper implements were fashioned by being hammered into shape
while the metal was in a cold or heated state with such rude implements
as were at the command of the natives, the finishing touches being given
by cutting and trimming the uneven edges with sharp flints and smoothing
the surfaces by rubbing or grinding with stones. Successful experiments
in reproducing the various forms of implements from the native or
nodular copper by these primitive processes have been made by the late
Frank H. Cushing, and by other archæologists. Mr. Gerard Fowke is
authority for the following statement:—

“So far as its working qualities are concerned, copper at ordinary
temperature is much more malleable than pure soft iron; and it is much
more easily worked into shape when at a red heat than when cold. If
hammered cold it must be annealed occasionally, otherwise it becomes
brittle. It is somewhat hardened by pounding, which will account for the
harder edge of celts and other aboriginal specimens beaten out
thin.”[26]

[Illustration:

FIG. 581. (S. 1–5.) Collection of J. T. Reeder, Houghton, Michigan. 13
copper spuds, 4 pick-pointed knives, 4 knives. All except one from
Michigan.
]

The theory that any of these implements may have been cast is now
discarded by archæologists. There is no evidence to show that our local
aborigines possessed any knowledge of the working of this metal in the
broad sense.

“Even if copper could be melted in an open fire, which is very doubtful,
it must not be overlooked that Indians had no materials of which to make
crucibles or moulds capable of withstanding such heat. Admitting they
had clay receptacles which would have answered these purposes, there is
no way of handling the molten metal with safety.”[27]

While it is probable that many copper implements were fabricated in the
vicinity of the workings, it is now perfectly clear that fragments of
the native ore were also carried away to be cut up and fashioned into
implements elsewhere. The possession of such masses by the aborigines
was noted by the early explorers and missionaries. On the extensive
village-sites at Two Rivers, Sheboygan, Green Lake, and elsewhere have
been obtained numerous small chips, scales, and fragments of copper,
plainly indicating that the manufacture of implements was carried on
there. Elsewhere in the state have been found lumps of the metal
exhibiting tool-marks, and other indications of working.

_Distribution_

To fully discuss this phase of the subject would require many pages. The
student must therefore content himself with such information as can be
condensed into a comparatively limited space.

Implements and ornaments of native copper are distributed commonly or
sparingly throughout a large portion of the eastern half of the United
States and in some states west of the Mississippi River. Outside of our
own state, numbers of them have been recovered in Minnesota, Iowa,
Illinois, Ohio, and West Virginia, and also from the mounds and stone
graves and village-sites in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Georgia. Mr. Clarence B. Moore, whose explorations have
been very extensive, has reported their existence in the mounds of
Florida and elsewhere in the extreme South. From five mounds on the St.
John’s River in Florida he obtained ornaments of sheet-copper with
repoussé designs, beads of sheet-copper, beads of wood, shell, and
limestone copper coated, copper effigies of the turtle and the serpent,
and piercing implements of copper. Dr. C. C. Abbott long ago recorded
the existence of copper implements in the Delaware Valley.

[Illustration:

FIG. 582. (S. 3–4.) Copper gouges. The one to the left was found near
Westford, Dodge County, Wisconsin. The one to the right was found
near Chilton, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 583. (S. 1–1.) Copper spud from Mercer, Iron County, Wisconsin.
Loaned to the Milwaukee Public Museum by Mr. R. L. Ball.
]

As a result of his researches, Rev. W. M. Beauchamp recently issued
under the auspices of the University of the State of New York, at
Albany, two finely illustrated bulletins, one descriptive of the
metallic implements and the other of the metallic ornaments of the New
York Indians.

[Illustration:

FIG. 584. (S. 5–6.) Copper axe. Found in a mound on Green Bay Road,
one mile north of Milwaukee. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

Professor G. H. Perkins states that objects of this metal are far more
numerous in New England than those of bone or shell. They are found not
only on the surface, but in the graves as well. They are similar in form
to Wisconsin artifacts, and he believes it probable that all are made of
metal obtained from the Lake Superior district. Dr. David Boyle and
others have called our attention to the presence of native copper
implements in both eastern and western Canada.

There is no longer any doubt that much of this metal was thus
distributed, either in the unworked state or as finished artifacts, in
the course of the trades or regular exchanges known to have been carried
on between the aborigines holding possession of the copper district and
those of other regions.

A description of the Wisconsin districts from which the greatest number
of such artifacts have been recovered up to the present time may be
given as extending from about the middle of Milwaukee County, northward
along the west shore of Lake Michigan to Door County, thence westward to
the Wisconsin River or slightly beyond, thence southward along this
stream to Dane County and eastward to Milwaukee County, the
starting-point. Embraced within this territory are the extensive lake
shore village-sites, from which thousands of articles have already been
recovered, and certain well-known sites in Green Lake and adjoining
counties, the Rush Lake, Lake Chetek, and similarly productive regions.
The amount of copper implements obtained from the mounds and graves of
Wisconsin is very small when compared with the quantity obtained from
the village-sites and fields.

_Classes and Functions_

The native copper artifacts of Wisconsin admit of separation into two
principal classes, designated as implements and ornaments. Of these the
former class is by far the more numerous. Mr. Henry P. Hamilton
estimates that articles of utility constitute fully 95 per cent of the
copper artifacts found in Wisconsin.

It is but natural that on account of its proximity to the source of
supply we should find in our own state not only a more bountiful supply
of implements, but a greater range of classes, types, and varieties as
well. The correctness of this conclusion is proven beyond doubt. In the
matter of the number and artistic excellence of its copper ornaments and
objects of a ceremonial nature, Wisconsin, while possessing some types
apparently peculiar to itself, cannot properly be said to lead. The
artistically cut or embossed sheet-copper discs, gorgets, and plates,
the spool-shaped objects and copper-sheathed stone and wooden ornaments
of Ohio, Illinois, and the South, are here conspicuous by their almost
total absence.

[Illustration:

FIG. 585. (S. 1–1.) Copper spud with incised zigzag decoration. Fond
du Lac, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

No one Wisconsin collection contains all of the classes and types of the
implements described in this bulletin. An examination of almost any
local copper cabinet, however small, is almost certain to reveal the
presence of some object that is original or peculiar; or some variation
of a well-known type not elsewhere to be seen. The difficulties
attending the making of a proper classification are therefore apparent.
Especially among the objects classed as arrow- and spear-points the
number of well-established types, of varieties and infrequent forms, is
particularly numerous. In a somewhat lesser degree this is also true of
other classes of implements.

Among spear- and arrow-points especially, there appears to be a gradual
development from the primitive leaf-shaped, through the stemmed, to the
numerous and well-executed socketed forms. In this case the important
element in the transition from one form to another is in the manner of
hafting. A gradual transition in some instances from well-marked types
of one class into those of another may also be noted. The uses of many
of these implements, because of their close resemblance to modern
articles, are readily understood. The precise function of others is not
so readily ascertained.

An examination of a large series of any of these should convince us that
each had its special function, although probably also employed for such
other exigencies as might arise.

In the following pages the various classes of local copper implements
and ornaments are described and such information and suggestions
concerning their workmanship, purposes, frequency, and distribution
given as is now obtainable.

_Axes_

Large numbers of these implements have been recovered from Wisconsin
soil and are to-day represented by one or several examples in nearly
every local copper collection. They vary in weight from half a pound to
three pounds, rarely more, and in size from three to ten inches. So far
as is known no hafted copper axe has yet been recovered. Probably the
usual and most satisfactory method of hafting one of these implements
was to insert it between the parts of a cleft stick, to which it was
afterwards secured by winding the stick above and below it with strips
of hide, a number of turns being also taken around or across it. There
are at least three well-established types of these implements, which may
be briefly described as follows:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 586. (S. 2–3.) Copper axe, Washington County, Wisconsin. Copper
chisel, near Charleston, Calumet County, Wisconsin.
]

1. Those which are oblong or nearly oblong in outline, having the edges
parallel or nearly so, and whose breadth is such as to exclude them from
the class of implements known as chisels. Specimens range from less than
four up to seven or more inches in length. They are generally of nearly
uniform thickness throughout. (See Figs. 576, 578.) A variety of the
above type has the margin at the edges slightly elevated, thus giving a
depressed or concave surface in the centre, and from end to end, on one
or both broad faces of the axe. In some examples this margin is fully
one half inch in width at or near the middle of the axe. A curious
feature of some examples of this uncommon form is the concave cutting
edge. Such implements are to be seen in a number of the larger public
and private collections in Wisconsin. So far as can be ascertained no
examples of these curious axes have been obtained in surrounding states,
where the normal form also occurs.

2. Axes with straight, tapering edges. They are widest at the cutting
edge and become gradually narrower towards the head, which is either
square, rounded, or pointed. The cutting edge is straight or convex.
This appears to be the most common type of copper axe. The largest
example known is fourteen inches in length and the smallest only two
inches. The large specimen comes from Neillsville, Clark County, and is
in the State Historical Museum. (See Fig. 578.)

3. A third and less frequent type has the edges curving equally from the
cutting edge to the head. Most examples are quite thin, broad and flat.
The head is square and sometimes nearly as broad as the cutting edge. By
reason of their broad, expanding cutting edges, some of these axes may
be appropriately described as bell-shaped. Fine specimens of this type
are to be seen in the Milwaukee Public Museum, and in other collections.
These axes approach the modern axes in form. In the H. P. Hamilton
collection is a notched copper axe which comes from the vicinity of
Horicon. It is rather rude and is irregularly oval in outline. Mr. M. C.
Long has in his Kansas City collection the only grooved copper axe
known.

[Illustration:

FIG. 587. (S. 1–1.) Copper spud, Island Lake, near Gagan, Oneida
County, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

Copper axes were well adapted alike for peaceful and warlike pursuits.
In the hands of the Wisconsin aborigines they were undoubtedly useful
implements, superseding at best the clumsy stone axe or hatchet, and
possibly being in their turn laid aside for the more serviceable iron
axe of the fur-trader.

Employed in warfare or the chase they would be terrible weapons. As
tools they were probably especially useful in the felling of trees, the
shaping of log canoes, the erection of dwellings, barricades, and
stockades.

They may have been employed in connection with or without fire. It has
been suggested that some of the smaller implements may have served as
wedges.

_Chisels._ (_See Figs. 577, 579, 580._)

The aboriginal copper implements known as chisels are of nearly as
frequent occurrence in local cabinets as the implements of the foregoing
class. In the H. P. Hamilton collection there is to be seen an
especially fine series of at least a dozen or more examples, ranging in
size from five to fifteen inches and in weight from five ounces to five
and three fourths pounds. An equally fine series is in the Field Museum.

The office of these fine implements probably included the excavating of
wooden canoes, mortars, and other vessels. Their employment in
connection with the mining operations of the Indians has been mentioned.
Some specimens exhibit upon their heads the flattening which would
result from their being used in conjunction with a wooden mallet, club,
stone, or other weighty object. Others show no such marks and were
probably employed without such agencies. Rev. W. M. Beauchamp states
that a large proportion of the copper articles found in New York are of
the celt (axe) or chisel form. Professor G. H. Perkins has described
similar implements from New England. At least three distinct types of
these implements are known to occur in Wisconsin:—

1. The first of these is broadest at the cutting edge. The edges taper
gradually upward from the cutting edge to a pointed, rounded, or squared
head. They are usually thickest at or below the middle, the flat or
convex surface sloping toward the narrow extremity. Some of these have
the upper surface convex and the lower surface flat. The broad or narrow
sides may be either convex or flat. Fine implements of this form are to
be seen in the H. P. Hamilton, State Historical Museum, and other local
collections. A few approach fourteen inches in length. (See Fig. 579.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 588. (S. 1–1.) Back view of Fig. 587. Milwaukee Public Museum
collection.
]

2. A second type is of nearly uniform width throughout, with straight,
parallel edges. A specimen in the S. D. Mitchell collection has a
cutting edge at either extremity. Implements of this type are to be seen
in various Wisconsin cabinets. They range from about five to ten or more
inches in length, and from one and one half to two inches in width. (See
Fig. 580.)

3. A third and less frequent type is characterized by a more or less
prominent median ridge, which traverses its upper surface from within an
inch or more of the cutting edge to the opposite extremity. From this
ridge the surface bevels off evenly on either side toward the edge. The
lower surface is usually flat, thus giving a triangular section. The
edges are generally parallel for at least three quarters of the distance
back from the cutting edge, whence they taper or curve gradually to the
rounded head. A few are of nearly uniform width throughout, with an
angular or squared head. Several of these implements have the upper
extremity abruptly narrowed and prolonged into a short tang, as if
intended to be set into a wooden handle. A few are curved or bowed from
extremity to extremity. Some specimens have an expanded, curved cutting
edge. One of the largest of these ridged chisels is fourteen and three
fourths inches in length. It is in the H. P. Hamilton collection and
comes from the town of Oshkosh, Winnebago County. (See specimen to the
left, Fig. 579.)

_Spuds._ (_See Figs. 581, 583._)

In northwestern Wisconsin have been obtained a limited number of copper
implements bearing a close resemblance in form to some of the so-called
stone spuds or spade-shaped implements, after which they were probably
patterned. They are rather broad, flat implements, of nearly uniform
thickness throughout, and from six to eight or more inches in length.
The broad, narrow blades are semicircular or crescentic in outline. From
them the handle tapers backward to a squared or slightly rounded
extremity. The narrow sides are flattened. The author is indebted to
Professor T. H. Lewis for sketches and information in regard to some of
these, which were obtained by him at Lake Chetek, Barron County,
Wisconsin; at St. Paul, Minnesota, and at Ontonagon, Michigan.

[Illustration:

FIG. 589. (S. 6–7.) Copper spud from near Pewaukee Lake, Waukesha
County, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 590. (S. 3–5.) Copper spear. S. D. Mitchell’s collection, Ripon,
Wisconsin.
]

The conclusion, probably correct, in regard to these implements is that
they were employed, like the stone and modern iron implements which they
resemble, in stripping bark from trees and for similar purposes.

_Gouges._ (_See Figs. 582, 585._)

These implements are closely allied to the chisels, from which they are
distinguished by the presence on their lower surface of a concavity
sometimes reaching quite to the middle. They are well adapted for
working out rounded or oval holes or hollows, and in Wisconsin are
generally considered to have been wood-working tools. Elsewhere they
were probably also employed like the more common stone gouges in
quarrying and working steatite, catlinite, and similar deposits useful
to the aborigines. Such implements are to be seen in the H. P. Hamilton,
Field Museum, and one or two other collections.

[Illustration:

FIG. 591. (S. about 1–1.) Copper spears. Found on Bluff Point, near
Penn Yan, New York. Collection of L. G. Ogden, Penn Yan, New York.
]

Several specimens known to the author approach seven inches in length.

Professor Perkins mentions copper gouges as being rare in New England,
where stone gouges are a common and characteristic implement. Neither
stone nor metal gouges are of frequent occurrence in Wisconsin.

_Adzes_

These implements have also been called spuds, winged chisels, and hoes.
Of these the term “spud,” though unsatisfactory, appears to be that in
most general use at the present time. This name, as has already been
shown, is likewise applied to a rather numerous class of stone
implements of quite different pattern and use. Several theories as to
the possible function of these implements have been advanced. It has
been suggested that they were ice-cutting tools, or agricultural
implements.

An examination of a large series of them suggests the correctness of the
now prevailing opinion that they were employed in shaping wooden canoes
and executing tasks of a like nature. Properly hafted, their general
adaptability to such service is plain.

[Illustration:

FIG. 592. (S. 1–2.) Various copper implements. University of Vermont
collection.
]

A somewhat similar tool is also employed by modern woodworkers.

1. There are at least two well-marked types of these implements. The
first of these is generally nearly square, less frequently oblong in
outline. The flanges of the implement are turned inward to form a
socket, at the base of which is a hip or shoulder, against which the tip
of the wooden handle abuts. The blade is elevated above the socket and
is provided with a straight or slightly curved cutting edge. The back of
the implement, opposite the socket, is flat or transversely convex, and
slopes or curves downward to the cutting edge. This is certainly the
most common type, and has been obtained in many parts of Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Minnesota. Examples have also been collected in Ohio,
Illinois, and Iowa. The average specimen appears to be about three
inches in length by two and a half inches in width. The smallest known
is only one and a fourth inches and the largest six and a fourth inches
in length. Fine series of these implements are to be seen in the Logan
Museum, Field Museum, State Historical Museum, Milwaukee Museum, H. P.
Hamilton, and other collections. In weight adzes of this type vary from
a few ounces to one and a half or more pounds. (Fig. 581.)

2. A second type differs from the preceding mainly in the fact that the
extremity of the socket is angular in outline and that the flanges are
bent straight upward or inward, instead of curved. The hip at the base
of the socket is also often absent. The back is generally flat or
transversely rounded, and in some specimens traversed from the top to
the cutting edge by a pronounced median ridge. A specimen in the
Milwaukee Public Museum has the middle of its back ornamented with a
double row of zigzag incisions. Its blade is also ornamented. (Fig.
583.)

These implements are as a class larger than the foregoing. Of a dozen or
more examples which the writer has examined in the Hamilton and other
local cabinets, none are below five inches in length and two and a
fourth inches in breadth, the largest known being six inches in length
and three inches in breadth. The weight of these specimens ranges from
twelve ounces to nearly two pounds.

There are also a small number of peculiar forms, each represented by a
single example. These vary in the length and breadth of the flanges and
the shape of the blade. When a sufficient number of these shall have
been recovered, it may be advisable to expand the present classification
to include them. Many of the implements included in the adze class are
admirable for their symmetry and perfection. A specimen secured in the
Lake Superior region has a portion of the wooden handle still fitted in
the socket.

[Illustration:

FIG. 593. (S. 2–3.) Copper chisel and awls. Logan Museum collection,
Beloit, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 594. (S. 2–3.) Copper spears. Collection of the Logan Museum,
Beloit, Wisconsin.
]

_Spatulas_

Of the copper implements known as spatulas only a small number of
examples have as yet been recovered in Wisconsin. The blade of these
artifacts is usually broad and thin and irregularly rounded or somewhat
triangular in outline. The handle is short, seldom more than three
eighths of an inch in thickness, and nearly square or somewhat
rectangular in section. Specimens are to be seen in the State Historical
Museum, Milwaukee Public Museum, and other local collections. They range
from four to nearly six inches in length.

[Illustration:

FIG. 595. (S. about 3–4.) Copper ridged spear-point, socket tang. From
Coloma, Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum
collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 596. (S. 1–4.) Copper spears. Collection of H. P. Hamilton, Two
Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 597. (S. about 3–5.) Copper knives. Left to right: Hartford,
Washington County, Wisconsin; Merton, Waukesha County, Wisconsin;
Wayne, Washington County, Wisconsin.
]

The Reverend W. H. Beauchamp has described and figured both an iron and
a copper implement of this class from New York. The possible employment
of these implements in the shaping of aboriginal earthenware, the
removing of the flesh from skins and bones, and of the scales from fish,
has been suggested. They are but poorly adapted for use as spoons.

The small number of specimens on hand at present makes it undesirable to
venture an opinion of their utility.

_Knives_. (_Figs. 597, 598._)

In point of numbers these easily rank second to the numerous class of
socketed spear-points. They have been recovered in considerable numbers
in many parts of the state. At least four distinct types and some
intermediate and peculiar forms are recognized. The close resemblance of
some of these to the white man’s knife has frequently been remarked
upon.

1. The most frequent form has a usually straight back and oblique curved
or straight cutting edge. It is provided with a generally short,
tapering, pointed tang, suitable for insertion into a wooden, bone, or
horn handle. Such knives, ranging in size from diminutive specimens one
inch in length up to twelve inches, are not uncommon in local
collections. (Left specimen, Fig. 597.)

An exceptionally large and fine example in the Oshkosh Library
collection measures seventeen and a half inches in length and weighs
eleven ounces. The blade is one and a half inches in breadth at its
base, and the tang is six inches in length. A few have the cutting edge
of the blade beveled. In the R. Kuehne collection is a small hammered
native silver knife of this type which was obtained from the vicinity of
Sheboygan. A small number of these knives have their blades ornamented
with incisions and indentations. Specimens of these are to be seen in
the H. George Schuette, H. P. Hamilton, and other collections.

2. A second type is distinguished from the preceding by the greater
breadth of its broad curved blade, which terminates in a broadly rounded
point. In this style of knife the blade on one or both sides is
frequently traversed from point to tang by a pronounced median ridge.
The broad, flat tang also terminates in a blunt point. Such implements
are to be seen in the Field Museum, Milwaukee Public Museum, State
Historical Museum, H. P. Hamilton, and other collections. These vary in
size from six to twelve and three fourths inches in length and from one
and a fourth to two and an eighth inches in the extreme breadth of the
blade. (One in Fig. 568.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 598. (S. 2–3.) Copper spears, knives, and arrow-points.
Collection of S. D. Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

3. A third type, locally known as the “handled copper knife,” differs
from the preceding styles mainly in having the tang so uniformly broad
as to obviate the necessity of a wooden or other handle. Only a small
number of these are in collections. A fine specimen is seven inches in
length. The handle is two and a half inches in length, and of a nearly
uniform breadth of three fourths of an inch. It comes from Pardeeville,
Columbia County, and is in the Logan Museum at Beloit. A knife in the J.
T. Reeder collection, at Houghton, Michigan, has a broad copper ferule
still encircling its tang. The tip of the tang is bent over, meeting the
ferule. (Fig. 581, left specimen, near centre.)

4. Socketed knives. These resemble the knives of the type first
described in the shape of their blades. They are provided with a socket
similar to those of the socketed spears. A small number of these have
been found and are to be seen in the H. P. Hamilton, H. George Schuette,
and other Wisconsin collections. They range from two to nine inches in
size.

In these knives the cutting edge is usually along the right, rarely
along the left side of the blade. A specimen in a Milwaukee collection
has its blade ornamented with indentations. A small number of knives of
peculiar forms are also to be seen in local cabinets. (See Fig. 597.)

_Arrow- and Spear-Points_

1. Leaf-shaped points. (Fig. 598, upper right-hand specimen.) These vary
considerably in form and size, measuring from two to six or more inches
in length. The average size appears to be about four inches. Some are
oval in outline, others elliptical, lanceolate, or almond-shaped, the
elliptical forms appearing to predominate. The points are not numerous.
One or more specimens are to be seen in all of the larger Wisconsin
collections.

A small number of lanceolate forms in the Hamilton collection have the
added feature of a median ridge which traverses either side of the blade
from end to end. These range from two and three fourths to nine inches
in length.

2. Stemmed, flat points. (Fig. 603—to the right. Fig. 598—lower central
specimen.) These are of quite common occurrence in Wisconsin
collections. These points are generally quite flat and of nearly uniform
thickness throughout. The stem is of uniform breadth or tapers slightly
toward its extremity. In the former form it sometimes expands at the
base. The base is sometimes indented. In the Field Museum there is a
fine specimen of this variety from Montello, Marquette County. It is
nearly seven inches in length.

[Illustration:

FIG. 599. (S. 4–5.) Copper spear-points. Left to right: Merton,
Waukesha County, Wisconsin; Colgate, Waukesha County, Wisconsin;
Wayne, Barton County, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

The blade varies considerably in shape and size. The smallest example
known is one and three fourths and the largest about eight inches in
length. The average size appears to be about three inches. A very small
number have the face of the blade ornamented with indentations, usually
arranged in two parallel rows.

2 a. Ridged points. (Fig. 595.) These and several of the succeeding
forms are, strictly speaking, only well-established varieties of the
preceding type. In the present instance they are distinguished by the
presence of a median ridge which traverses both faces of the point,
usually from tip to tip. This is not a frequent form. The largest
specimen now known measures six inches in length. It is in the H. P.
Hamilton cabinet and was found at Two Rivers. Professor T. H. Lewis
obtained a specimen from a mound in Pepin County. Other specimens are in
the Field Museum and Milwaukee Public Museum and several private
collections.

[Illustration:

FIG. 600. (S. 1–2.) Copper spear-heads. Rat-tail type. Logan Museum
collection, Beloit, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 601. (S. 1–3.) Copper spears and knives. Collection of S. D.
Mitchell, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 602. (S. 2–3.) Copper punch, hooked end, to right; from Barton,
Wisconsin. Copper punch to left; from Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
Copper punch in the centre, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum
collection.
]

2 b. Beveled points. Of these only a small number of examples have been
recovered. They are distinguished from the most frequent flat, stemmed
form by a distinct bevel of generally uniform width which extends along
the edges on both faces of the blade. Sometimes this bevel is nearly one
half inch in breadth. The shape of the blade varies considerably. The
known specimens range from two and a half to five inches in size.
Examples are to be seen in the Field Museum, H. P. Hamilton, and other
collections.

2 c. Eyed points. The base of the stem in this rare form is provided
with an eye, opening outward and probably intended for the reception of
a rivet. Otherwise these points do not differ from the flat, stemmed
types. Only a very small number of specimens have been found.

2 d. Notched points. These bear a close resemblance to a numerous class
of flint arrow- and spear-points, after which they are probably
patterned. No two of them are exactly alike. They differ from each other
in the shape of the blade and shape and position of the notch. A few are
traversed by a median ridge. Some have indented bases. They vary in size
from less than two and up to six inches in length. Such points are of
infrequent occurrence. Specimens are in existence in the Milwaukee
Public Museum, Field Museum, Logan Museum, and other collections.

2 e. Toothed points. These are rather remarkable and interesting
implements, and are distinguished from all others by the peculiar
angular toothing or serration of the edges of the stem, the purpose of
which is evidently to facilitate the fastening of the point to the
wooden shaft or handle, into which it was inserted, by means of sinews
or strips of hide. A greater solidity of attachment was thus secured.
The number of opposite notches on the stem varies in different examples,
from two to as many as six or seven. The usual number appears to be two
or three. Most examples of this type are long and narrow. A few,
however, are short and broad, and elliptical in outline. The largest
known example of this form is about nine and a half inches and the
smallest about two inches in length. The average size appears to be
about three and a half inches. In many specimens a central ridge or
elevation extends along either side from extremity to extremity, or only
from the base of the stem to the point of the blade. (Fig. 599.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 603. (S. 1–3.) Copper knives, awls, fish-hooks, and other
objects. S. D. Mitchell’s collection, Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

In both the F. M. Benedict and H. P. Hamilton collections are large and
fine series of these points. Upon a specimen in the latter collection
indications of cloth wrappings are to be seen. Other collections also
possess one or a number of examples. The greater part of the known
specimens are from the Fox and Wolf river valleys in northeastern
Wisconsin. Now and then flint spear-points of somewhat similar pattern
have been found in and about the same district. Michigan has furnished a
few specimens of the copper points. Slate points of very similar form
occur in New England, where they are regarded as knives. A small number
of copper points of this pattern are also reported to have been found
there.

3. Spatula-shaped points. (Fig. 596, central ones, and Fig. 600.) These
peculiar points have obtained their name from the resemblance which the
typical form bears to a chemist’s spatula. They are also locally known
as “rat-tailed points.” In the most frequent form the blade is rather
flat and somewhat elliptical in outline. It does not generally exceed
three inches in length, being usually less than one half the total
length of the implement. A small number have an elliptical, lanceolate
or very rarely elongated lozenge-shaped blade. The usually long,
tapering stem is generally circular or nearly circular in section, and
is well adapted for insertion into a perforation or socket in a wooden
shaft or handle. Several specimens have near the tips of their pointed
stems a succession of rudely cut opposite notches, probably intended to
prevent the easy withdrawal of the point from the shaft. A very small
number have the blade traversed by a median ridge. The smallest specimen
of this type of copper point now known is four inches and the largest
nine and a half inches in length. A large number attain the size of
eight inches. Fine specimens are to be seen in the State Historical
Museum, Logan Museum, Field Museum, Hamilton, and other collections. The
Reverend Mr. Beauchamp has noted the occurrence of a limited number of
specimens in New York. A small number of iron trade points of similar
shape have been found.

4. Short-stemmed points. The blade is generally long and triangular in
shape, the stem short, cylindrical, and pointed at the end. The average
size of these points appears to be about six inches. (Fig. 596.)

The largest example now known is twelve inches in length, the stem
measuring only about three inches. This is not a frequent form of copper
point. Fine specimens are to be seen in the Field Museum, Hamilton, and
other collections. A cache of four of these singular points found at
Chilton, Calumet County, is to be seen in the Milwaukee Public Museum.
The Reverend W. M. Beauchamp has described similar spear-points from New
York.

[Illustration:

FIG. 604. (S. 1–1.) Copper harpoons. Logan Museum collection, Beloit,
Wisconsin.
]

4 a. Barbed or pronged points. This type of copper point is of rather
infrequent occurrence. The blade is usually of an oval or somewhat
triangular shape. A few specimens have long narrow blades. Situated just
below the base of the blade on either side is a single barb or prong.
These prongs are sharply or obtusely pointed and as a general thing do
not extend out to a point in line with the outer edge of the base of the
blade. The stem is short, flat, or cylindrical, and usually tapers to a
sharp point. (Upper left-hand specimen, Fig. 592.)

In some examples the blade is traversed on one or both faces by a
well-defined median ridge. The prongs probably served the double purpose
of barbs and of projections, by means of which the point could be more
firmly secured to the wooden shaft into which it was inserted. Such
points are to be seen in the Hamilton, Field Museum, and other
collections.

The smallest specimen known is three inches and the largest about seven
and one half inches in length. The average size appears to be about four
inches.

This interesting form of spear-point also occurs sparingly in
surrounding states, and has been recorded from as far east as New York
and New England, where a few specimens have been found.

Large iron spear-points of somewhat similar form, but with the
projections squared at the ends, have been found in Wisconsin. Some of
these have hearts and other devices cut or punched through the face of
their blades. These were probably introduced among the Indians by the
early fur-traders.

5. Conical points. A very large number of these have been collected from
the extensive Lake Michigan shore village-sites in Wisconsin, of which
locations they appear to be more or less characteristic, replacing to a
large extent all other types of copper points. Some fine examples have
also been obtained from other sites in counties farther inland; from the
Lake Superior shore, and from the Lake of the Woods region in Minnesota.
Fine series of these points are to be seen in the A. Gerend, Hamilton,
Kuehne, and other collections. (Fig. 598, three lower figures.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 605. (S. about 3–4.) Copper harpoons. Left to right: Hartford,
Washington County, Wisconsin; Wisconsin; Wauwatosa, Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 606. (S. 1–2.) Copper harpoon. Collection of S. G. Crump,
Pittsford, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 607. (S. 1–8.) Front and reverse of a copper war-club. Dug out of
a prehistoric grave at Spuzzum, British Columbia. Obtained by Mr.
James Teit.
]

These points vary in length from less than one inch up to six inches or
more. The majority, however, are of small size and do not exceed two
inches in length. The most prevalent form is fashioned in the shape of
an attenuated hollow cone of small diameter. Other specimens have the
point solid for an inch or more back from the tip. Less frequently they
are furnished with an open angular socket and hip like that of the
ordinary socketed copper spear. In a few examples the flanges of the
socket are pierced with a square or round hole, as if for the reception
of a rivet, or possibly for the attachment of a light line. A few have a
rivet-hole also at the base of the socket. It has been stated that these
points have occasionally been found with fragments of the wooden shaft
filling or extending beyond the socket. Their presence in numbers upon
the sandy lake shore sites where the aboriginal residents appear to have
depended largely upon the fishing industry for subsistence, appears to
indicate their employment in such a connection. Possibly in the shooting
or spearing of fish.

[Illustration:

FIG. 608. The base of the Effigy Mound, Hopewell Group. Explored in
1891–92. Copper axes and plates in the foreground, lying as found.
Teams, thirty to forty feet distant, and two feet higher than the
deposit.
]

6. Ridged socketed points. If we except from consideration the very
numerous small awls and fish-hooks, we may truthfully state that this is
by far the most common type of copper implement occurring in Wisconsin.

Thousands of these points have been collected in Wisconsin, and probably
as many or an even greater number are yet to be recovered from the soil.

They are represented in greater or less numbers in every Wisconsin and
in many other collections.

This type and its varieties are too well and widely known to require
much of a description. They are frequently symmetrically and beautifully
wrought, indicating a degree of skill on the part of their aboriginal
makers that is unsurpassed. The blade varies considerably in length and
breadth. The stem is provided with flanges which are bent straight
upward or inward, thus forming an angular socket for the reception of
the wooden shaft. Some points having fragments of this shaft still in
place have been found. This form is rarely if ever provided with a
rivet-hole. In most examples there is a dip or shoulder in the socket at
the connection of the stem and blade, against which the head of the
wooden shaft abutted. A distinctive feature of these points is the
pronounced central ridge which traverses the back of the implement from
end to end. It is this feature which has gained for this style of point
the local name of “bayonet-backed spear-point.” The tip of the stem is
also usually angularly pointed. A small number of these points have the
upper surface of their blades ornamented with indentations variously
arranged in double rows or lines. This type of copper point has been
found as far to the south as the Gulf, as far east as New England,
westward to the Missouri, and northward into Canada.

The largest example known to have been found in Wisconsin measures
thirteen inches in length. It is in the E. C. Perkins collection. The
average size is between three and five inches.

[Illustration:

FIG. 609. (S. 3–5.) Large copper plate covered with shell beads, Seip
Mound, Ohio. W. C. Mills’s collection.
]

6 a. Rolled socketed points. (Fig. 601.) This form is almost if not
quite as common as the preceding, from which it is distinguished mainly
by the fact that the back of the blade and stem are not usually upon the
same plane. The central ridge also is absent. Many examples are provided
with a rivet-hole (very rarely with two, one above the other) within the
socket near the base of the stem. Specimens with a small copper rivet or
nail still in place in the socket are of not infrequent occurrence in
Wisconsin collections.

At least two well-defined varieties of these points may be recognized:—

1. The first of these is provided with a short, broad, oval, or
almond-shaped blade. The stem and socket in this form is usually
broadest at the base, tapering or narrowing toward the blade. The
average length of these specimens is about four inches. A large specimen
found at Ripon, Fond du Lac County, measures seven inches in length, and
two inches in breadth near the base of the blade. Specimens of this type
may be seen in the Hamilton, State Historical Museum, Logan Museum, and
other collections.

2. The second form is furnished with a long, narrow, lanceolate blade,
often twice or more than twice as long as the stem. The socket and stem
rarely taper upward and are of more nearly equal width throughout. In
both this and the preceding form the flanges of the socket are rolled
inward, in some instances nearly meeting. The average length of these
points appears to be about five inches. The largest specimen known
measures eleven and one half inches in length. Such specimens are to be
seen in nearly every Wisconsin cabinet.

In the very limited number of the smaller specimens the face of the
blade, rarely the back, is ornamented with indentations. The edges of
the blade are also sometimes beveled.

Among the smaller specimens is observed a variety in which the length of
the stem equals or exceeds that of the blade. In some specimens the
socket has the appearance of having been formed by excavating the stem,
the narrow flanges being continuous with the blade instead of cut and
turned inward as in the ordinary form. A small number of iron socketed
spear-points, not differing greatly from the ordinary socketed copper
point, have been found.

Peculiar points. In several Wisconsin collections are several
spear-points of curious form not included under any of the foregoing
descriptions or represented, so far as can be learned, in other
Wisconsin cabinets.

[Illustration:

FIG. 610. (S. 1–1.) Ornamented copper plate, Seip Mound, Ohio. W. C.
Mills’s collection.
]

One of these in the H. P. Hamilton collection has a long slender blade
and a very short socket. It is seven and one quarter inches in length
and comes from Two Rivers, Manitowoc County. Its blade is ornamented
with a row of nine indentations.

In the Milwaukee Public Museum is a series of three peculiar socketed
spear-points of an average length of about eight and one half inches.
The blade of each of these is very long and narrow, with straight edges,
and terminates in a sharp point. The stem is very short and narrow in
comparison with the blade and broadens into a short socket at its base.
One specimen has the middle of its blade, from near the base toward the
middle, ornamented with a continuous zigzag indentation. Another has
upon its blade a series of dots arranged in a triangular form. Two of
these points come from Fond du Lac County, and the other from Sheboygan
County.

_Harpoon-Points_

The purpose of these implements is too plain to make any explanation
necessary. Four distinct types of harpoon-points, none of which are as
yet known to be of other than very infrequent occurrence, have been
obtained in Wisconsin. What special application any of these several
patterns may have had is not yet clear. The following is a brief
description of them:—

1. The first are short, flattish points seldom exceeding two and a half
inches in length. (Fig. 605, to the left.) One edge of these implements
is either straight or presents a continuous curve from extremity to
extremity. The other edge is curved or straight from the point downward
to about opposite the middle of the implement, where it terminates in a
barb. From thence it narrows to the other extremity, thus forming a
stem. Occasionally this is notched on either side near its base. Small
numbers of these points have been recovered from the village-sites along
the Lake Michigan shore.

2. A second and less frequent form is cylindrical in section and tapers
to a sharp point at each extremity. (Fig. 604, second from right.)
Removed from one extremity by several inches, more or less, is a stout
and very pronounced barb. All are of large size. A particularly large
specimen measures ten and three fourths inches in length and about one
half inch in diameter at the middle. Others are to be seen in the State
Historical Museum and H. P. Hamilton collections. Mr. Clarence B. Moore
has figured and described a large example obtained by him in Florida.

[Illustration:

FIG. 611. (S. 2–3.) Copper crescents. Collection of Logan Museum,
Beloit, Wisconsin.
]

Iron harpoons of similar form, but frequently possessing from two to
three barbs, sometimes alternating on opposite sides of the implement
are still in use by Wisconsin Indians for spearing large fish.

[Illustration:

FIG. 612. (S. 1–1.) Ear ornaments from the Hopewell Group, Ohio.
]

3. Another form of harpoon is represented by a specimen in the Milwaukee
Public Museum. This implement is somewhat triangular in section, about
eight and a half inches in length and about three fourths of an inch in
breadth at the middle. The ends taper to a blunted point. The thinner
edge of the implement is furnished with four stout, broad barbs,
separated from each other by a distance of about one and a half inches.
Bone harpoon-points of this pattern occur in New York and Ontario. (Like
Fig. 606.)

4. A fourth type, the so-called “socketed harpoon-point” (Fig. 604), has
one edge of its blade prolonged into a barb at the base. This barb may
be on either the right or left side. Otherwise this type does not differ
in shape from some of the flat-backed, socketed spear-points. Only a
small number of these points have been found. All these are provided
with a rivet-hole in the socket. An example in the Logan Museum is about
four inches in length, and comes from Mequon, Ozaukee County.

_Pikes and Punches._ (_See Fig. 602._)

In this class of objects, which are as yet alluded to by students and
collectors by either of the above or other names, are included the
largest copper implements found in Wisconsin. They are rod-like in form,
usually circular or square, less frequently rectangular in section, and
taper to a point at one or both ends. Large specimens of each of these
several patterns have been found. The largest is in the Field Museum. It
is about forty inches in length, one inch in diameter at the middle, and
tapers to a point at either extremity. It weighs five and a quarter
pounds and was obtained from a burial-mound on the Abraham place, at
Peshtigo, Marinette County.

[Illustration:

FIG. 613. (S. 1–1.) Copper crescent-shaped object obtained near
Chattanooga, Tennessee. Milwaukee Public Museum collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 614. (S. 1–3.) Copper crescents. Collection of Wisconsin
Archæological Society.
]

A specimen in the H. P. Hamilton collection is twenty-nine inches in
length, seven eighths of an inch in diameter, and weighs two and three
fourths pounds. About one inch from the pointed extremity there is a
broken projection which Mr. Hamilton believes to have been a barb. The
other end terminates in a small claw or broken out eye. It comes from
Maple Creek, Outagamie County. In the T. W. Hamilton collection there is
another fine specimen which is eighteen and a half inches in length and
weighs one and a half pounds. A specimen found at New Haven, Adams
County, is fourteen and a half inches in length and weighs one and three
eighths pounds. Other large specimens are to be seen in the Logan
Museum, State Historical Museum, and Milwaukee Museum collections. Some
of these are rather flat, rectangular in section and one inch in width
and less than three eighths of an inch in thickness. They are pointed at
one extremity and rounded or blunted at the other. Some other large
specimens are known to have been cut in two and otherwise maltreated by
the persons who found them.

In the Field Museum collections implements of this pattern ranging from
eight inches or less up to the largest size are classed as “pikes.” That
they were employed as weapons is extremely doubtful. It has been
suggested that they may have been heated and employed in the burning-out
of wooden canoes or wooden vessels. There is reason to believe that some
of the lighter forms were mounted in wooden handles, at least one
example with an accompanying copper ferule having been found at
Milwaukee.

[Illustration:

FIG. 615. (S. 2–3.) Copper saucer-shaped object. Hopewell Group, Ohio.
]

_Awls and Drills._ (_See Figs. 593 and 603._)

These have been obtained nowhere in greater numbers than in the Lake
Michigan coastal region in Wisconsin. They vary in size from about one
to six inches or more, and in thickness from one sixteenth to one half
an inch. The greater number are of very small size.

The simplest and most frequent form is a slender cylindrical piece of
metal pointed at one or both extremities. A second and usually stouter
form is either round or square in section and tapers from a well-marked
shoulder at or near the middle to both extremities. Sometimes one end
only is pointed. Occasionally also the upper half of the implement is
straight and the lower half tapers to a point. Many of these small
implements were probably mounted in handles of wood, bone, or antler,
the object of the shoulder being to prevent their passing too far into
the handle. Several specimens mounted in antler handles have been found.
Similar implements of bone and stone have been found in Wisconsin. Most
of them were probably employed in drilling holes in wood, bone, or
stone, in piercing skins, and for similar purposes. The Eskimo are said
to employ somewhat similar implements of bone for catching waterfowl.
They are used by attaching a line to the centre, the bone spindle being
baited with a small fish into which the implement is inserted
lengthwise. Large fish are captured by them in the same manner. We have
no record of the employment of such methods by Wisconsin Indians.

[Illustration:

FIG. 616. (S. 1–2.) Possibly this was the crown of a head-mask. It
seems to indicate growing antlers, or those of a young buck. When
found the horns or projections were downward and the raised surface
uppermost. Hopewell Group, Ohio.
]

_Spikes._ (_See Fig. 580, lower left-hand specimen._)

In a number of Wisconsin cabinets are to be seen copper implements
locally known as “spikes,” taking their names from the close resemblance
which they bear to the modern articles. These vary somewhat in shape and
size.

[Illustration:

FIG. 617. (S. 1–1.) Pendant of sheet-copper. C. B. Moore’s
explorations.
]

One specimen is four and a half inches in length, one fourth of an inch
in thickness, with one extremity pointed and the other enlarged and
blunted to form a head. Another is seven inches in length and tapers
gradually downward from the head, where it is three fourths of an inch
in diameter, to the point.

A few specimens are decidedly square in section.

An examination of the heads indicates that they are not the result of
pounding while in use, but constitute an intentional feature of these
implements. No suggestion has been offered as to their function. They
may be simply perforators or drills. Some of the stouter implements,
with broad, flattish points, may have been employed as chisels.

_Needles_

These are obtained from the same sites as the foregoing and are
frequently associated with them, though not nearly as numerous. All are
provided with eyes, and except in their somewhat ruder fashioning do not
differ from the needles in ordinary domestic use at the present day.
Their purpose requires no explanation.

These implements range in size from less than two to as much as eight
and an eighth inches. The average size appears to be between two and
three inches. Such implements are to be seen in many of the eastern
Wisconsin collections. In the Milwaukee Public Museum is a small series
of copper needles from Mexico.

_Fish-Hooks._ (_See Fig. 603._)

Hundreds of these and fragments of many others have been collected from
the aboriginal village- and camp-sites on the west shore of Lake
Michigan in Wisconsin. They have also been obtained in numbers from the
village-sites at Green Lake and at various other localities along the
upper Wisconsin, Fox, Wolf, and Little Wolf rivers, and elsewhere in
this part of the state where good fishing was to be had. Some have also
been found far to the north along the Lake Superior shore.

Most specimens are of small size, from less than an inch up to two
inches in length. The largest known example is four inches in length.
They are generally circular, though sometimes decidedly square in
section. The points curve and slant outward and inward at all angles and
degrees of curvature. None possess any indication of a barb.

The shank at the point of attachment to the line is most frequently
straight. Sometimes, however, it is notched, flattened, bent over and
flattened, or bent over to form an eye. A few specimens have been
collected which have bits of sinew or twisted fibre still attached to
the shank. Fine series of these useful articles are to be seen in many
local collections.

In the H. P. Hamilton collection there is a series of ten fish-hooks
obtained from the bank of the Little Wolf River, in the township of
Muckwa, in Waupaca County. These are from two and a half to two and
three fourths inches in length, the strongly and broadly curved hook
reaching up to about opposite the middle of the shank. Some are circular
and others square in section, and all are of a nearly uniform thickness
of one fourth of an inch. Several have the tips of the shank flattened,
and all are heavily incrusted with soil and verdigris, plainly
indicating the manner in which they had lain upon and across each other.

_Peculiar Implements_

In a few of the large Wisconsin cabinets are to be seen a very small
number of implements whose exact functions are unknown and which cannot
be placed in any of the various classes here described.

[Illustration:

FIG. 618. (S. 1–2.) Remarkable effigy in copper. Collection of J. M.
Wolfing, St. Louis, Missouri.
]

One of these, in the H. P. Hamilton collection, is eight and one quarter
inches in length. It is circular in section and tapers to a point at
either extremity. It is seven eighths of an inch in diameter near the
thicker extremity and is knotty all over the surface. Mr. Hamilton
suggests that it may have been employed as a club or bludgeon. It weighs
eight and one half ounces and comes from Little Chute, Outagamie County.
In the same collection there is also to be seen a long, curved, flattish
implement which, it has been suggested, may have served as a sword. It
is about twenty inches in length and about one inch in width near the
middle. It was obtained with a cache of six other copper implements at
Oconto, Oconto County, Wisconsin.

_Banner-Stones_

The only specimens in native copper of this interesting and widely
distributed class of ceremonial objects are in the H. P. Hamilton
collection. One is of the ordinary butterfly pattern with expanding
wings. Both specimens were found at Oconto, Oconto County, and were
included in a remarkable cache of copper implements and ornaments,
consisting of a crescent, sword, chisel, leaf-shaped blade, and two
arrow-points. This specimen, weighing five ounces, is three and one half
inches in length, and one and one fourth inches in width across the
elevated part at the middle. The broad wings are one and one fourth
inches in length and one and one half inches in width across their outer
edges. The perforation at the middle is of one inch in length and has a
short diameter of half an inch. A second specimen in the same cabinet is
of the so-called “pick” shape. It weighs two and one fourth ounces. It
is five inches in length and only one inch in width across the widest
part, near the middle. The narrow wings are two and one fourth inches in
length and taper to a rounded point, the perforation at the middle being
half an inch in diameter.

_Beads._ (_See Figs. 569, 570._)

The most common local form of copper bead is somewhat spherical in shape
and was fashioned by rolling together a small, narrow strip or welt of
native metal, varying in thickness from less than one eighth to one
fourth of an inch or more, only one or two turns of which were necessary
to make a rude bead of quite large size. Beads of this kind have been
obtained in large numbers from Wisconsin village-sites, graves, and,
sometimes, from the mounds. Quantities of them, as many as one hundred
or more, have occasionally been taken from a single grave.

[Illustration:

FIG. 619. (S. 1–3.) Unknown symbols in sheet-copper, Hopewell Group.
]

In several Wisconsin collections fine strings or necklaces of such beads
may be seen. Beads of this form have also been obtained in Ohio,
northern Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota. The Reverend W. M. Beauchamp
has mentioned their occurrence in New York.

A second and quite common form of copper bead is made of a thin sheet of
metal rolled into the form of a cylinder.

They vary in diameter from one eighth to one quarter of an inch or more,
sometimes exceed two inches in length. They are of quite common
occurrence on the Lake Michigan shore and on some inland village-sites.
From aboriginal village-sites at Two Rivers and on the shores of Green
Bay small cylinders formed by twisting thin sheets of native copper
between the fingers in a spiral shape are found.

_Bangles._ (_See Fig. 569._)

These are also made of thin sheets of native copper. They are of small
size, conical or somewhat conical in shape, and open at both
extremities. It is believed that these served as bangles, probably
taking the place, in the past, of the small metal discs, brass or tin
cones, brass thimbles or bells with which it was the custom, among the
later Indians, to ornament dress fringes or other articles of wearing
apparel. They occur on aboriginal village-sites in the Fox River Valley
and in the Lake Michigan shore region.

_Finger-Rings_

These consist of small, narrow rods or strips of metal bent into the
form of a simple circlet, the ends abutting or nearly meeting.
Occasionally the rods are thickest at the middle and taper to a point at
the extremities. Some may have served equally well as ear-rings.
Specimens are occasionally found in the Lake Michigan shore region, as
well as elsewhere in the state.

[Illustration:

FIG. 620. (S. 1–2.) Copper fish. Hopewell Group. Field Museum
collection, Chicago.
]

_Ear-Rings_

The fondness of the later Indians for such ornaments is well known, and
it is quite probable that they were also in rather general use among the
earlier aborigines.

In the S. D. Mitchell collection is a small crescent-shaped copper
ornament which may have served as an ear-ring or nose-ring, being well
adapted for such use. It measures one and three eighths inches in
extreme width, and was obtained from an Indian village-site in Green
Lake County. Similar specimens are in several other local collections.

The Reverend W. M. Beauchamp states that the earliest metallic ear-rings
in use among New York aborigines were probably those of copper wire
coiled and flattened, and believes it possible that perforated discs and
coins may have served the same purpose in early historic times, but that
they were more likely to have been employed in some other way. Glass and
shell beads, and probably many other things, were so utilized.

[Illustration:

FIG. 621. (S. 1–4.) Copper eagle. Hopewell Group. Field Museum
collection, Chicago.
]

_Ear-Spools or Ear-Plugs._ (_See Fig. 612._)

Professor T. H. Lewis has obtained ornaments of this class during mound
explorations conducted by him at Prairie du Chien, Crawford County, and
Wyalusing, Grant County, in Wisconsin. Ear-spools have been obtained
from various localities in Ohio, Illinois, and the South. Some of these
are rather elaborately ornamented with embossed figures. In the Field
Museum collections are specimens which were taken from the mounds of the
celebrated Hopewell Group in Ohio.

A specimen in the Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society’s
collections has still attached to it a fragment of the string or cord by
means of which it was probably attached to the ear of its aboriginal
owner. Similar objects of stone overlaid with sheet-copper have been
described by various authors.

_Gorgets and Pendants._ (_See Figs. 570 and 617._)

Careful inquiry has shown the existence of only a small number of these
in Wisconsin collections. It is quite possible, however, that such
ornaments were in more common use among Wisconsin aborigines than the
present limited number would indicate. Being fashioned of sheet-copper,
they would even under ordinary conditions be more likely to suffer
destruction, through decomposition, than many other less fragile
artifacts, which show very plainly the effects of chemical action during
their interment. One form of pendant is triangular in shape and is
provided at the broad upper extremity with two perforations, by which
means it could be attached, by a cord, to the person of its aboriginal
owner. Such pendants have been found in Winnebago, Jefferson, Crawford,
and Barron counties. One of the largest measures three and one eighth
inches in length, and one and one fourth inches in width at the upper
edge.

Sheet-copper pendants of circular shape have also been obtained. These
have perforations near the edge or at the middle. The largest specimen
known is about three and one quarter inches in diameter. Pendants of
this form have been obtained in Kenosha, Jefferson, Dane, Columbia,
Grant, Crawford, Barron, Burnett, Winnebago, and Brown counties. A few
specimens of other forms have also been recovered.

_Crescents._ (_See Figs. 611, 613, 614._)

In this class of copper ornaments are at present included a number of
thin, flattish objects, the basis of all of which appears to be the
crescent, either plain or variously modified by the addition of prongs
or other prolongations arising from the inner or upper edge, near the
middle or extremities.

There is probably little doubt that the greater number of the objects
included in this class were worn by our primitive Indians as breast
ornaments, being fastened to the neck by means of cords. In this way
several of them may have been worn, one below the other. The
adaptability of certain of the pronged forms for use as hair ornaments
is noticeable.

Large numbers have been collected in Wisconsin, and others will probably
be found as old sites are more thoroughly explored, and new lands opened
to cultivation. The existing examples appear to have been obtained, for
the most part, from the village-sites and graves, where they sometimes
occur in association with copper beads and other articles of personal
adornment. But very few have been recovered from the burial-mounds of
the state.

A few have also been found in Minnesota, northern Michigan, and
Illinois. The finest series of these copper crescents, representing
nearly all of the known types, is in the H. P. Hamilton collection. The
following is a brief description of the Wisconsin types of copper
crescents:—

1. One of the simplest, although uncommon forms, has the upper edge
quite straight and the lower ones broadly curved. Specimens have been
found in Manitowoc County, and in Houghton County, Michigan.

[Illustration:

FIG. 622. (S. 2–3.) Mica ornament. Hopewell Group.
]

2. A closely allied type has both edges curved, approaching more nearly
the true crescent form. The degree of curvature varies considerably in
the small number of specimens known. Specimens have been found in
Washington, Sheboygan, Marquette, Crawford, and Barron counties.
Minnesota has produced several specimens: one from Monroe County, having
both extremities notched to allow for suspension. (Fig. 611.)

3. A third type, the so-called “canoe-shaped” crescent, usually has its
lower and upper edges curving equally and formed at the extremities into
a short point or embryo prong, directed inward. This is the most
frequent Wisconsin type, and examples of it are to be seen in many
collections. The largest and finest example now known (10 × 2¼ inches,
weight 20 ounces) is in the Hamilton collection, and was found in the
city of Oconto, Oconto County. Michigan and Minnesota have also yielded
a number of specimens. (See Fig. 611.)

4. A fourth type has the prongs or points at the extremities of greater
length and directed upward or inward. Specimens have been found in
Calumet, Door, Sheboygan, and Marquette counties. They vary in length
from five to seven and one half inches. (One in Fig. 568.)

5. In a fifth type the prolongations, arising from the extremities of
the upper edge of the curved base, approach each other and unite to form
a central spike, which is usually circular in section and formed by the
prolongations being twisted about each other. Specimens have been
obtained in Price, Manitowoc, Green Lake, Waukesha, Washington, and
Columbia counties. One has been found in Minnesota. (Fig. 614, specimen
D.)

6. Another peculiar type is furnished with a pair of spikes or prongs,
usually rather long, and either flat or cylindrical in section, which
arise on either side of the middle of the curved top (or base). (Fig.
613.) Specimens have been obtained in Columbia, Pierce, Washington, and
Vernon counties. One has been found in Ottertail County, Minnesota.
These specimens range from four to eight inches in length, the prongs
being from three to four inches long. A modification of this type has
the prongs united at their points by a short cross-bar. (Specimen G in
Fig. 614.)

_Other Ornaments_

In the Milwaukee Public Museum are two broad, flat strips of native
copper which may have been worn as headbands.

Both of these fragments, originally curved, have the appearance of
having been straightened, by the finders, and may have formed a part of
the same band. The larger (six inches by one inch) and the smaller
(three and five eighths inches by one inch), and less than one fourth of
an inch in thickness, are ornamented along either edge and down the
middle with a row of deep indentations. The locality is Sheboygan
County. On the skulls of two skeletons in a mound in Crawford County
were found thick copper plates. The larger of these was ornamented along
two edges with a double row of indentations, and measured eight inches
long by four inches wide. The other plate was about four and one half
inches square.

Mr. Brown has called attention to the distribution of copper and has
described these objects so thoroughly that no remarks on my part are
necessary. However, I wish to offer, briefly, one or two suggestions.

Copper seems to have played an important part in aboriginal life in this
country. As the natives possessed neither gold nor silver and because
silver ornaments are extremely rare, one may say that silver was not in
use; copper appealed to them as being something beyond the ordinary, if
not possessing supernatural powers. There was no other substance which
they could hammer into shape, or slightly anneal and work more easily.
No other malleable material possessed that bright, beautiful color and
was capable of such polish. Therefore, copper appealed to the
aborigines, and they made general use of it more as an ornament, or a
totem, than for ordinary utility; that is, save in the “copper belt,”
where it was so common that tools were made of it.

[Illustration:

FIG. 623. (S. 3–4.) Mica ornaments. Ohio mounds. Collection of W. C.
Mills, Columbus, Ohio.
]

What the Northern Indians received in exchange for the copper has always
been a mystery to me. In Wisconsin and Michigan where drift copper
occurred in large quantities, and where it still may be found, it is
likely that the natives carried on an extensive trade in copper and that
the peoples of Ohio passed it on, one may suppose, to the South. This
trade was extensive because not only in our museums are there thousands
of copper objects, but there are many more in the hands of private
collectors, and in the mounds of the Mississippi Valley where there has
been much digging, great quantities of hatchets, plates, nose-rings, and
spools are dug up from time to time.

[Illustration:

FIG. 624. (S. 1–3.) Mica ornaments from mounds of the Hopewell Group.
Field Museum collection, Chicago.
]

One may question whether the presence of copper in the Ohio Valley
really means extensive aboriginal commerce or trade. I say Ohio Valley
because more mound copper is found there than elsewhere, although the
South should by no means be excluded. Copper and other foreign materials
abound in the middle and lower Mississippi Valley. Yet upon the shores
of Lake Superior, about the copper range, on the streams and lakes of
Wisconsin and Michigan where lived the Indians who possessed so much
copper that they made of it hatchets, fish-hooks, knives, spear-points,
etc., usually are to be found no Southern types save a few pipes and
problematical forms in slate. What did these Northern natives receive in
return for the quantities of copper which they must have bartered? Did
they receive bird-stones, gorgets, pipes, etc.? Their bird-stones are
very like those of Indiana and Ohio, yet they have a broad bird effigy
usually with ears on both sides of the head which is not found save
occasionally in southern Ohio and Indiana, and seldom in the South where
mound copper is common. Their gorgets and pipes appear to be local. It
has occurred to me that the peoples of Indiana and Ohio, and possibly
the South, made raids in the copper country, or found copper nuggets in
the drift, or mined their own copper, or robbed the Northern peoples of
such copper as they wanted. If there had been any extensive aboriginal
trade, we should surely find more evidence of it.

Mr. Clarence B. Moore[28] has conclusively proved that the copper taken
from the Southern mounds and Ohio mounds is prehistoric and not of
European origin. Some of the gentlemen connected with the Smithsonian
Institution and affiliated museums contend that the fine _repoussé_
work, on sheet-copper, could not have been made by aborigines working
with stone tools.

A few words regarding the illustrations. An inspection of all the
figures in this chapter, marked from the Hopewell Group, give some idea
of the remarkable copper effigies, ornaments, cut designs, etc.,
comprising the Hopewell collection. This is now on exhibition in the
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, and can be seen by any person
who will take the pains to visit that institution. It is justly
considered the greatest prehistoric copper collection in the United
States. In the Hopewell Group altars hundreds and hundreds of copper ear
ornaments were found, all more or less affected by heat. Professor Mills
has dug up many ornaments of these same kinds and says of them:—

“Copper ear ornaments were frequently met with in the graves, and twenty
specimens were secured. They were invariably found in pairs. The
manufacture of these ornaments required skill, as well as a high degree
of advancement in ornamental art. The mode of manufacture of the ear
ornaments, although two different types were found, was similar. One
type was made of two concavo-convex plates, and were connected by a
cylindrical column; but only a few pairs of this type were found. The
other type, which was most common, was made of four plates of copper,
two of which are circular, and two concavo-convex. The concavo-convex
plates are attached to the circular pieces, which form the inside of the
ornament. The discs are connected with a small cylinder of copper. This
figure is a good illustration showing two views of the second type of
ear ornaments. Other copper ornaments were found sparingly in the burial
cists. From one grave a large copper crescent was removed, and from
another, six large copper balls.”

Sometimes the copper plates were highly ornamented and cut or trimmed.
Fig. 610 is thus described by Professor Mills:—

“The plate shown in this figure is perhaps the heaviest and smoothest of
all the plates taken from Seip Mound. The scroll pattern cut upon one
side of the plate represents the first specimen of the kind taken from
the mounds of Ohio, as far as known. The plate was wrapped in leather
when it was placed in the grave, and portions still adhere to the plate,
as shown in the cut.”

Of the interesting pendants in sheet-copper, Fig. 617, exhumed from a
mound in Moundville, Alabama, Mr. Moore has to say:—

“The upper part of the pendant has parts excised to form a six-pointed
star within a circle. On the body of the star, _repoussé_, is a symbol
to which we shall revert later. Below is an excised triangle; beneath
which is part of an arm encircled by a string of beads and an extended
hand bearing on it the open eye, all _repoussé_.”

The decayed cloth, the fragments of skins and the curious, fine silt,
usually about a handful, lying around copper objects, indicate that they
were at one time carefully wrapped up. If we had preserved to us some of
these wrappings, not a little light might be shed on the use of the more
highly developed copper problematical forms in the United States.

I am indebted to the directors of the Milwaukee Public Museum for making
illustrations of the finest copper objects in their collections: Figs.
574, 579, 582–89, 595, 597, 599, 602, 605, 613.

CHAPTER XXXI
TEXTILE FABRICS

It would be comparatively easy for one to write a lengthy chapter upon
textile fabrics. But because of the limited space now at my disposal and
for the further reason that “The Stone Age” is purposely restricted
chiefly to descriptions of art in stone rather than in fabrics, this
chapter must necessarily be brief.

It is unfortunate that almost none of the fabrics of prehistoric times,
made use of by the natives of that period, are in existence to-day, and
aside from pieces of mats and here and there a bit of cloth from the dry
caves of Kentucky and the Ozark Mountains, there is nothing in our
museums to give a clue as to the nature and material of the garments,
robes, blankets, etc. We are dependent chiefly on history for our
knowledge of the use of textile fabrics.

But in the Southwest the aridity of the climate, together with the fact
that the walls of the cliff-houses kept out the occasional rains, and
that the sands of the desert drifting over the ruined pueblos, worked in
harmony to preserve a goodly number of fragments of textile fabrics.
Some of these are in the American Museum, New York City, others in
Washington, Denver, and Philadelphia museums. All are of great interest
and were made use of by stone-age man.

The copper plates found in the mounds of the Mississippi Valley
sometimes contain impressions of cloth and other fabrics. There are
occasionally bits of charred cloth, found in altars or ash-pits or
between copper plates. Professors Holmes, Mills, Putnam, and others have
described these in various reports.

An inspection of the material illustrated in this chapter will acquaint
readers with the fact that the natives of Kentucky made use of various
plants, the favorite of which is the ordinary flag, for the manufacture
of baskets, sandals, etc.

In the Southwest, desert plants, such as the yucca, possessing
elasticity and strength, were employed for a multitude of purposes.

Could we have preserved for our inspection the textile fabrics made use
of in the Mississippi Valley, we doubtless should observe that primitive
man in this great region employed utensils, garments, weapons, tools,
and other things made of perishable material.

[Illustration:

FIG. 625. (S. 1–4 to 1–5.) Sandals from Salts Cave, made of bark and
wild hemp. Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 626. (S. about 1–3.) Andover collection. Three sandals and an
unfinished object from Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Group, New Mexico. Found
by W. K. Moorehead.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 627. (S. 2–5.) Moccasin worn through at toe and heel, from Salts
Cave. Material, leaves of cat-tail. Collection of Bennett H. Young,
Louisville, Kentucky.
]

Salts Cave, near Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, has been recently explored by
Colonel Young, and I am indebted to him for proof-sheets of his work,
“Discoveries in Kentucky Caves.” Colonel Young states that the cave has
been known for a hundred years and is an extremely interesting place.
Upon examination he ascertained that many holes had been dug in the cave
floor (for it is covered with debris and cave earth), apparently by the
ancient people who had at some time lived there. Contrary to the caverns
in the Ozarks, this cave has been visited and explored in prehistoric
times, and the remains of man are not confined to the openings, where it
is light, but extend for several miles through the various labyrinths.
Colonel Young writes:—

“Along the main cavern for several miles are numerous fireplaces and
ash-heaps; small piles of stone, evidently placed to hold fagots used in
lighting; innumerable partly burned torches of cane-reed, and even the
footprints of the men who, hundreds of years ago, walked along these
majestic avenues. The cave contains a large amount of saltpeter, and has
a mean temperature of fifty-four degrees. The atmosphere of the interior
is dry and pure, and this, together with the nitrous matter in the
earth, has produced conditions favorable to the preservation of all
kinds of materials. About the hearths and fireplaces were found hundreds
of fragments of gourds, and also some shells of the aboriginal squash,
both of which were in an excellent state of preservation. Torches of
reed, to be counted by the thousands, which had been filled with grease
or soaked in oil, traces of which may still be seen on some specimens,
appeared as if they had been cast aside but yesterday. Along the main
avenues and the second or lower layer of caves, as well as in many side
avenues, these torches were found. Those who have spent much time in
this cavern say that they have discovered no places where these and
other traces of aboriginal man are absent.

[Illustration:

FIG. 628. (S. 1–4.) Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville,
Kentucky. Moccasins and pieces of cloth from Salts Cave.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 629. (S. 1–4.) Flags, wild hemp, and other materials used in
making cloth. From Salts Cave. Collection of Bennett H. Young,
Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 630. (S. varying.) Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville,
Kentucky. Bag of woven cloth from Salts Cave—nine by seven inches;
plaited rope; fragments of cloth.
]

“Among the most interesting discoveries were a number of neatly braided
slippers or sandals, and fragments of textile art. Several materials
seem to have been used in the manufacture of these. Some were made of
the fibre of the cat-tail, or _Typha_, a plant which grows abundantly in
the ponds in the southern part of the state. Others were woven of the
inner bark of trees, probably the pawpaw and linn. Still others were
made of what appears to be the fibre of wild hemp, and yet others from a
species of grass which grew in great abundance on the Barrens of
Kentucky.

[Illustration:

FIG. 631. (S. 1–4.) Pair of leggings, with the bone needles used in
making them. From cave-house ruins in eastern Utah, 1895. Collection
of Henry Montgomery.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 632. (S. 1–5.) Wooden pail or tub from cave-house ruins, San Juan
County, Utah, 1894. H. Montgomery’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 633. (S. reduced 2–3.) Vase, turkey form. Feathers are indicated
by marks made with black paint. Collection of B. H. Young,
Louisville, Kentucky.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 634. (S. 1–3.) Birch bark from a burial-pit in North Dakota.
Henry Montgomery’s collection, Toronto.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 635. (S. 1–7.) Old wicker and twined baskets from the Pueblo of
Zuñi, New Mexico. This figure shows some old so-called Zuñi-ware,
collected for the Bureau of American Ethnology by James Stevenson,
in New Mexico, long ago.
]

“The sandals show several distinct forms of braiding; the material of
the more delicate and graceful appears to be the wild hemp, and the
plait on the outer side exhibits a beautiful triangular figure. They
have raised sides from the heel to the toe, the braids being worked
forward, uniting in a seam in the middle line above the toes. Over the
instep many were laced with cords, the lacing still being preserved in
some of the specimens. Frequently long ornamental tassels were placed
above the instep. These slippers are found in the crevices of the rock
and on the ledges in out-of-the-way places where they evidently had been
cast aside by these people. All show signs of wear at toe and heel.
Several display a more or less skillful attempt on the part of the owner
at mending or darning. This was done sometimes with cord, but frequently
with bark. In size they vary from small ones, made for children, to
specimens corresponding to a number seven shoe.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 636. (S. 1–4.) Coiled bowl-tray of the ancient basket-makers,
cliffs of southeastern Utah. Ornamented by two sinuous rings in
black. Collection of American Museum of Natural History, New York.
]

While we have some numbers of textiles preserved for our inspection, yet
our study of the subject is somewhat narrowed. As has been previously
stated, the bulk of prehistoric artifacts are composed of more lasting
materials. It is unfortunate that we have so few of the garments, robes,
head-dresses, baskets, wooden and other things once in use in America.

Thorough exploration of the caves and caverns, the cliff-houses and
ruined pueblos may bring to light quantities of this textile and wooden
material, and I would urge that such investigations be carried on. Many
of the caverns are ransacked by curiosity-seekers, and soon all the
objects buried therein will have disappeared.

CHAPTER XXXII
POTTERY OF THE UNITED STATES

In Volume 1, of this work, on page 26, is presented the classification
of the Nomenclature Committee with reference to pottery, which covers,
as a matter of course, all the specimens illustrated in this chapter.

[Illustration:

FIG. 637. (S. varying.) Outlines showing range of form of vases.
Middle Mississippi Valley Group.
]

While it is true that a great deal of pottery has been taken from
mounds, graves, cliff-houses and ruined pueblos by expeditions under my
direction, yet I have never made a detailed study of ceramic art in
America, although in a certain sense familiar with the forms found
throughout this country.

It would be presumptuous for one to write of a certain phase of
archæology that has been more ably and exhaustively treated by some one
who is a recognized authority. And in pottery we have two scholars,
whose explorations and studies place them first, Professor W. H. Holmes
and Mr. Clarence B. Moore. Professor Holmes’s “Aboriginal Pottery of the
Eastern United States”[29] will be taken as the last word on the
subject. And Mr. Moore’s eighteen reports of explorations in Florida,
Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi illustrate all the forms in clay found
in that extensive region.

There is in the United States no collection of Southern mound pottery
equal in extent to that obtained by Mr. Moore. His explorations have
been of great benefit to science, and it is no exaggeration to state
that his works shed very great light on prehistoric art as well in
pottery as in other materials.

Therefore, I have quoted by permission from both Professor Holmes and
Mr. Moore, and made use of numerous illustrations from their reports,
including the outlines of types prepared by the former.

[Illustration:

FIG. 638. Outlines showing range of form of vases. Middle Mississippi
Valley Group.
]

Pottery may be said to be the barometer indicating the culture stage of
any people. In the far North there is no pottery. In the St. Lawrence
basin pottery is insignificant. In New England the few artistic
specimens of decorative pottery have been made much of by observers, but
these rare examples of the ceramic art indicate progress on the part of
a few individuals. There was no real potters’ art north of the Ohio
River or east of the Wabash. True, there are some good examples of fine
pottery from the Ohio mounds, but the ancient Northern peoples made but
little progress in ceramic art save on the part of a few individuals
living in the Scioto Valley, southern Ohio. In the Iroquois country it
appears that the natives were on the verge of developing art in pottery,
and had they remained in their barbaric splendor two centuries longer,
it is quite likely that they would have made remarkable advance in the
potters’ art. Much of their pottery is decorated, but it is crudely so.
Their pipes of pottery were highly developed, ornate, and interesting.
But these have been considered under the chapter devoted to pipes and
smoking customs.

[Illustration:

FIG. 639. Vases of compound form. Middle Mississippi Valley Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 640. Vases of compound form. Middle Mississippi Valley Group.
]

So far as I am aware, the Wabash River in Indiana marks the farthest
north, of Southern types of pottery. There may be a few strays now and
then, but the cemetery explored by Mr. Anderson for Mr. Peabody, at that
place, brought to light more than one hundred jars, bowls, and effigies,
all of distinct types. (A few are shown in Fig. 681.) Elsewhere north of
the Ohio and east of the Wabash, I have not known of effigy pottery
being found.[30] Throughout the Ohio Valley there are some fine
specimens of ceramic art found in the mounds. But the pottery, as a
rule, between the Wabash and the Alleghenies is of the Fort Ancient
culture. Some of it is shown in Figs. 648, 649.

[Illustration:

FIG. 641. (S. ABOUT 1–10.)

_Collection of pottery, from mounds and graves in southeastern
Missouri. From F. P. Graves’s collection, Doe Run, Missouri._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 642. Outlines showing various features of vase elaboration.
Middle Mississippi Valley Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 643. Outlines showing various features of vase elaboration.
Middle Mississippi Valley Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 644. Vases from a mound on Perdido Bay. Gulf Coast Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 645. Vases from a mound on Perdido Bay. Gulf Coast Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 646. (S. 1–4.) Wisconsin bowls. S. D. Mitchell’s collection,
Ripon, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 647. (S. 1–4.) Urn of pottery. From mound in western Ontario.
Collection of Henry Montgomery.
]

At the great cemetery at Madisonville, Ohio, the pottery does not
exhibit skill in modeling or high finish. All the pottery of this great
region appears to be crudely made, of inferior materials, tempered with
pulverized unio shells or sand. In Indiana and Illinois there are
occasional effigies found in the mounds, but one must pass to the
Cumberland and Tennessee valleys, and to the St. Francis basin of
Arkansas, to southeastern Missouri, and to the region about Memphis and
Nashville for the highest ceramic art of the Southern Mound-Builders.
These people were peculiarly skilled in the potter’s art, and all the
museums of the country are filled with their handiwork. Professor Holmes
has commented on it at great length in the publication cited. The
potters’ art was highly developed in regions explored by Mr. Moore, as
is attested by the specimens presented in Figs. 678, 670–673. But effigy
pottery in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama is rarer than in Arkansas and
Missouri. On the contrary, there is more decorative pottery (with
incised lines, tracings of snakes and birds) in the region explored by
Mr. Moore than in the middle Mississippi Valley.

[Illustration:

FIG. 648. (S. about 1–6.) The two central ones in the upper row and
the left-hand specimen in the lower row are corrugated; from
northeastern Kentucky. The others are from southern Kentucky.
Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

Through the Great Plains there is a dearth of pottery. The buffalo
hunters had little need of it. The cemeteries and mounds of the Indian
Territory and Oklahoma, and of that long stretch of country flanking the
Arkansas River, produce good pottery, but not comparable with that of
the stone graves and mounds of the central South.

Northwestern California, the entire Rocky Mountains present an anomaly
in archæology in that no pottery—save here and there a stray—is found.
The Cliff-Dweller country, by which I mean the Colorado River Valley,
including its tributaries, abounds in pottery of the highest type found
on the American continent.

But while admitting that the Cliff-Dweller pottery was superior in
finish, material, and form of bowls, bottles, and dishes, yet the
effigies of the South and the middle Mississippi Valley are superior to
effigies found in the Cliff-Dweller country.

[Illustration:

FIG. 649. (S. 1–2.) Perfect pottery found with a skeleton, Gartner
Mound, Ohio. W. C. Mills’s collection, Columbus, Ohio.
]

The uses of pottery are primarily domestic. Whether bowls, jars, and
other forms were used as receptacles in which to boil or stew or bake
matters not. Man invented pottery because it was more convenient for him
to make a receptacle out of clay and bake the clay than to hollow a bowl
out of stone. He moved in the line of least resistance, and it was
easier to make a bowl or a dish from clay than to carve such a utensil
from stone. While Indians roasted much of their meat on the end of
sticks, or baked the food in the ashes, yet they preferred to boil and
stew their foods. This is especially true of the established villages
where a profusion of pottery fragments abounds. It is natural to suppose
that as the ceramic art developed, to the variety of forms in clay, man
added the dish, the waterbottle, the effigy, and more or less
complicated forms of the jar or the bowl. And because nothing but true
cooking-pots are found in the Lake Superior region, New England, the
Delaware and Susquehanna valleys, I claim that the pottery art was not
developed in those regions beyond the manufacture of rough utensils to
be used about the fire. And although there is some mound pottery in Ohio
of such finish and character as to designate it as above, and pottery
was made use of in the culinary arts, yet these examples are rare and
denote rather a high culture in a certain locality than proficiency in
ceramic art. It is only in the central and southern portions of the
Mississippi Valley and in the Cliff-Dweller country that pottery-making
became an art.

[Illustration:

FIG. 650. (_S. about 1–10._)

_Various jars, bottles, and bowls, from graves and mounds in
southeastern Missouri. Collection of F. P. Graves, Doe Run,
Missouri._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 651. (S. about 1–5.) The small vessel is just the size of a
teacup. The restored vessel has a diameter of eleven inches at the
top. Found at Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Collection of H. P. Hamilton,
Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 652. (S. about 1–5.) This pottery has been carefully restored. It
was found in Warehouse Point, Connecticut, and is thirty-eight and
one half inches in circumference and fifteen inches high. Collection
of A. E. Kilbourne, East Hartford, Connecticut.
]

Indeed in the Tennessee stone graves, and at the village at the mouth of
the Wabash River in Indiana, there have been found numerous clay rattles
and clay toys. The latter take the form of small bowls and dishes. With
them are frequently small clay pebbles. These little clay toys are
buried with skeletons of children ranging from two to six years of age.
It is remarkable that these people, whom we have considered as in the
middle stage of barbarism, should have invented the toy. It is quite
probable that the women who made these clay dishes were not influenced
by knowledge of similar things in use among Europeans, for the Tennessee
graves and the Wabash cemetery appear to be prehistoric. Such
discoveries as the presence of these dishes alongside of little children
suggest that we should go slowly in our statements that most of the time
of the aborigines was given up to warfare and barbaric ceremonies. We
know not the whole story of their daily life, but every year there are
additions to the sum of human knowledge, and such finds as I have
enumerated emphasize the human side of these people.

[Illustration:

FIG. 653. University of Vermont collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 654. (S. 1–3.) University of Vermont collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 655. (S. 1–3.) University of Vermont collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 656. (S. 1–2.) Broken pottery from Ohio and Pennsylvania sites.
Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 657. (S. 1–5.) Bowls from Kentucky graves and mounds. B. H.
Young’s collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 658. (S. 1–4.) Florida pottery. Andover collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 659. (S. 1–3.) Vessel, from Arkansas. Davenport Academy
collection. Middle Mississippi Valley Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 660. (S. 1–2.) Vase with incised design. From Louisiana.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 661. (S. 1–4.) Florida pottery. Phillips Academy collection.
]

The ceramic arts among the aborigines embrace not only clay forms used
in cooking and ollas for cooling, rather common in hot countries; but
also effigies were made of clay, there were clay spindle-whorls, also
clay rings, discs, and objects we know not the use of. Clay beads have
been found in a number of places. Illustrations, with brief
descriptions, are presented of all these clay things. It is quite likely
that on the large village-sites in the Tennessee and Cumberland valleys,
extending from central Kentucky to central Tennessee and northern
Alabama, many sun-dried clay objects, or objects imperfectly burned,
have disappeared through climatic agencies. I have remarked on the
importance of comparing historic sites with prehistoric sites and have
insisted that this should be done. I shall show, in the chapter cited
above, that the prehistoric as well as the modern Indians selected the
most favorable localities for villages; therefore modern villages were
often built on the site occupied by a prehistoric building. The presence
of stone, clay, bone, and shell objects on these sites indicates that
the population was greater in prehistoric times than in modern. The
fabrics and the wooden objects of ancient times have long since
disappeared, as have most such things of even two centuries ago. It is
observed on many sites that there are no shell objects even in the
ash-pits, and few bone objects.

[Illustration:

FIG. 662. (S. 1–3.) Vase from Madisonville, Ohio. Ohio Valley Group.
]

I take this to mean that such sites are the oldest of all. The things
that are preserved are only those of such substances as resist
atmospheric agencies. If one will study a village-site, walking back and
forth across the ploughed field for hours,—as I have done,—one will
observe that there are pieces of pottery of firm texture. There are
other pieces of pottery ready to disintegrate. The same is true of
shells. While one’s conclusions as to pottery are based upon the
specimens he finds, yet I do not consider it at all visionary to assume
that forms in clay, other than pottery, were in use among the Indians.
I, myself, have picked up fragments of pottery in such disintegrated
condition that they could be crumbled up between the thumb and index
finger.

[Illustration:

FIG. 663. (S. 1–4.) Vase from a mound at Madisonville, Ohio. Ohio
Valley Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 664. (S. 1–2.) Vase from a mound at Madisonville, Ohio Valley.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 665. (S. a little over 1–3.) Vessel, from Arkansas. Middle
Mississippi Valley Group.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 667. (S. 1–3.) Vessel, from Arkansas. Davenport Academy
collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 666. (S. 1–3.) Vase with incised design. Lower Mississippi
Valley.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 668. (S. 1–3.) From a mound near West Bay P. O. “Certain
Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast,” p. 131, Fig. 1.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 669. (S. 1–2.) Clay vessels from Iroquoian sites, New York.
Collection of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, New
York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 670. (S. 2–3.) Peculiar jar found during C. B. Moore’s
explorations. A vase, probably unique, of compound form,
representing a short-necked bottle imposed upon a vessel of
eccentric shape, having a series of four projecting lobes, above and
below. The ware is most inferior. The decoration, faintly and rudely
executed, consists partly of the scroll and partly of parallel lines
and punctate markings.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 671. (S. 2–3.) Mound place. A bottle of gray ware, having a flat
base and a most unusual shape of body—possibly a compound form. The
decoration consists of series of curved trailed lines above the
spaces in the lower part of the body.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 672. (S. 1–1.) Mound below Hare’s Landing. “Mounds; Moundville
Revisited; Mounds of Chattahoochee and Flint River.” Moore, p. 431,
Fig. 3.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 673. (S. 3–4.) This jar was badly crushed, and lay apart from
human remains. Put together, it proved to be a beautiful jar of
highly polished ware. The decoration is made of scrolls,
depressions, and incised encircling lines.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 674. (S. 2–9.) Three fine decorated jars from graves in
southwestern Kentucky. B. H. Young’s collection, Louisville.
]

The range of pottery in America both north and south is from the rudest,
thick, clumsy bowl, such as has been found in Kansas or Nebraska or in
certain parts of New England, to the highest art of the ancient
Cliff-Dwellers. I do not say highest art of the Pueblo people, for the
modern Pueblo art does not equal that of the ancient Pueblos or
Cliff-Dwellers. It must be remembered, when studying American pottery,
that although a bowl from Arkansas, a bottle from Mississippi, a dish
from Tennessee, or a pitcher from New Mexico may be of similar form and
like pottery found in Greece, Egypt, or Europe, yet this American
pottery has such an individuality of its own that the museum curator can
at once distinguish the one from the other. Truly American pottery is
different from that found elsewhere in the world. It may seem a paradox
and yet it is true that while the bowl from Missouri and the bowl from
ancient Rome may be of the same form and size, there is a peculiarity
observed in the American specimen that enables one to set it aside as
distinct and peculiar to the American aborigines. One could assemble and
mingle in a museum a thousand vessels, jars, and bowls from all over the
world, remove all the labels, and yet the students of American ceramics
would at once pick out those that represent American art.

[Illustration:

FIG. 675. (S. 1–3.) Vase with incised design. From Mississippi.
Davenport Academy collection.
]

Professor Holmes, in his publication previously cited, divides the
pottery of the United States into seven groups:—

Middle Mississippi Valley Group.

Upper Mississippi Valley, or Northwest Group.

Ohio Valley Group.

Iroquoian Group.

Atlantic Algonquin Group.

South Appalachian Group.

Gulf Coast Group.

About the pottery of New England he states:—

“The vessels were mere pots, and the pipes, although sometimes
ornamented with incised lines and indentations, are mainly the simple
bent trumpet of the more southern areas. The clay is tempered usually
with a large percentage of coarse sand, the finish is comparatively
rude, and the ornament, though varied, is always elementary. The
surfaces have, in many cases, been textured with cord-covered paddles,
and over these, or on spaces smoothed down for the purpose, are various
crude patterns made with cords, bits of fabric, roulettes, and pointed
tools of many varieties. The use of the roulette would seem to link the
art of this Abnaki region very closely with that of the middle Atlantic
States and portions of the upper Mississippi region.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 676. (S. 1–3.) Vessel imitating animal form; from Arkansas.
Middle Mississippi Valley Group. Davenport Academy collection.
]

In New Jersey, in the Chesapeake region, the pottery-ware is to a large
extent of Algonquin type, although some Iroquoian wares are found.

As in the case of New England, the forms are simple, the pottery crudely
made. But of course there are found fragments exhibiting considerable
skill in manufacture. These may be exotic types, and their presence due
to knowledge of the art of more advanced tribes, or to barter or
exchange.

The lower Mississippi mounds furnish some very superior pottery, though
many of the bowls, dishes, and jars taken from the mounds of that region
are no more skillfully made than those of the St. Francis and Cumberland
valleys. There are some examples of black pottery, very highly finished,
found along the Red River. Professor Holmes says of these:—

“The most striking characteristics of the better examples of this ware
are the black color and the mechanical perfection of construction,
surface finish, and decoration. The forms are varied and symmetric. The
black surface is highly polished and is usually decorated with incised
patterns. The scroll was the favorite decorative design, and it will be
difficult to find in any part of the world a more chaste and elaborate
treatment of this motive.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 677. (S. 1–3.) Vessel imitating animal form; from Arkansas.
]

Professor Holmes devotes special attention to the southern Appalachian
stamped ware. Most of the specimens in the Smithsonian came from the
Savannah River Valley. Mr. Moore has dug up a great deal of this pottery
along the Atlantic seaboard. The designs are stamped by means of a
paddle. Professor Holmes gives us the following description:—

“Although some of the peculiar designs with which the paddle stamps were
embellished may have come, as has been suggested, from neighboring
Antillean peoples, it is probable that the implement is of Continental
origin. It is easy to see how the use of figured modeling-tools could
arise with any people out of the simple primitive processes of
vessel-modeling. As the walls were built up by means of flattish strips
of clay, added one upon another, the fingers and hand were used to weld
the parts together and to smooth down the uneven surfaces. In time
various improvised implements would come into use—shells for scraping,
smooth stones for rubbing, and paddle-like tools for malleating. Some of
the latter, having textured surfaces, would leave figured imprints on
the plastic surface, and these, producing a pleasing effect on the
primitive mind, would lead to extension of use, and, finally, to the
invention of special tools and the adding of elaborate designs. But the
use of figured surfaces seems to have had other than purely decorative
functions, and, indeed, in most cases, the decorative idea may have been
secondary.

[Illustration:

FIG. 678. (S. 1–2.) Effigy bottle. Collection of E. E. Baird, Poplar
Bluff, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 679. (S. 1–4.) Effigy pottery from southwestern Kentucky. B. H.
Young’s collection, Louisville.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 680. (_S. about 1–8._)

_Decorated and painted bowls and jars typical of the best pottery,
from the Middle Mississippi Valley. Taken from mounds and graves of
Arkansas and Missouri. From the collection of F. P. Graves, Doe Run,
Missouri._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 681. (S. 1–5.) Three effigy bowls. From the Wabash Cemetery.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 682. (S. 1–2.) Remarkable effigy bowl in clay. Supposed to be a
life-mask. Found near Blythesville, Mississippi County, Arkansas.
From burial-site which was being washed away by river. Side view.
Collection of H. M. Braun, East St. Louis, Illinois.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 683. (S. 1–2.) Front view of Fig. 682.
]

“It will be observed by one who attempts the manipulation of clay that
striking or paddling with a smooth surface has often the tendency to
extend flaws and to start new ones, thus weakening the wall of the
vessel, but a ribbed or deeply figured surface properly applied has the
effect of welding the clay together, of kneading the plastic surface,
producing numberless minute dovetailings of the clay which connect
across weak lines and incipient cracks, adding greatly to the strength
of the vessel.

“That the figured stamp had a dual function, a technic and an esthetic
one, is fully apparent. When it was applied to the surface it removed
unevenness and welded the plastic clay into a firm, tenacious mass.
Scarifying with a rude comb-like tool was employed in some sections for
the same purpose, and was so used more generally on the inner surface,
where a paddle or stamp could not be employed. That this was recognized
as one of the functions of the stamp is shown by the fact that in many
neatly finished vessels, where certain portions received a smooth
finish, the paddle had first been used over the entire vessel, the
pattern being afterward worked down with a polishing-stone. However, the
beauty of the designs employed and the care and taste with which they
were applied to the vases bear ample testimony to the fact that the
function of the stamp as used in this province was largely esthetic.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 684. (S. 1–3.) Three typical bowls from the Chaco Group of ruins,
New Mexico. Dug up from debris in a lower room, Pueblo Bonito, in
1897, by W. K. Moorehead.
]

Of the life element in decoration on pottery, Professor Holmes writes at
some length. He assembled a number of vessels on which were various
decorations representing man, quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, batrachians,
and fishes. “The conclusion reached is that there is at least a large
degree of consistency, and that particular forms of creatures may be
recognized far down the scale toward the geometric. Exceptions were
noted, however. The symbols are occasionally intermingled, as if the
significance of the particular forms had been lost sight of, the potter
using them as symbols of the life idea in general, or as mere
decorations.

[Illustration:

FIG. 685. (S. about 1–4.) Four typical Chaco pitchers. Andover
collection.
]

“As a rule, the incised designs are more highly conventional than the
plastic, the eagle and the serpent being the only incised forms, so far
as has been observed, realistically treated; but it was possible to
recognize others through their association with the modeled forms. In
vessels furnished with the head of a bird in relief, for example, the
same kind of incised figures were generally found around the vessel, and
these are recognized as being more or less fully conventionalized
representations of wings. The same is true of the fish and its gills,
fins, and tail; of the serpent and its spots and rattles, and of the
frog and its legs. The relieved figures, realistically treated, become
thus a key to the formal incised designs, enabling us to identify them
when separately used. It will be seen, however, that since all forms
shade off into the purely geometric, there comes a stage when all must
be practically alike; and in independent positions, since we have no
key, we fail to distinguish them, and can only say that whatever they
represented to the potter they cannot be to us more than mere
suggestions of the life idea. To the native potter the life concept was
probably an essential association with every vessel.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 686. (S. 1–4.) Double jar from the Chaco Group. Found in a lower
room in Pueblo Bonito.
]

All writers on pottery observe a great difference between the ware of
the North and that of the South. Professor Holmes points to this in more
than one place in his writings, and he asks this question: “Is it due to
differences in race? Were the Southern tribes as a body more highly
endowed than the Northern, or did the currents of migration,
representing distinct centres of culture, come from opposite quarters to
meet along this line. Or does the difference result from the unlike
environments of the two sections, the one fertile and salubrious,
encouraging progress in art, and the other rigorous and exacting,
checking tendencies in that direction? Or does the weakening art impulse
indicate increasing distance from the great art centres in the far
South, in Mexico, and Yucatan?”

[Illustration:

FIG. 687. (S. 1–8.) A beautiful collection of ceramics from
cliff-houses in Utah and New Mexico. M. C. Long’s collection, Kansas
City, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 688. (_S. indicated._)

_A jar of “coiled ware,” from a cliff-house in New Mexico. Collection
of M. C. Long, Kansas City, Missouri._
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 689. (S. 1–3.) Stones used in smoothing pottery, kneading clay,
etc.
]

The antiquity of pottery in this country is a question of absorbing
interest. Perhaps the shell mounds of Florida shed more light on this
question than do other remains. Mr. Clarence B. Moore, who has explored
for several seasons, and thoroughly opened numbers of shell mounds,
states that sometimes there was no pottery in the lower layers of some
of these mounds. This would indicate that some of the shell mounds are
very old, and had been in use before the discovery and utilization of
pottery by our aborigines. I regret that I have not space to quote Mr.
Moore’s remarks at length, but must refer readers to his reports, which
take up this important question in detail.

Mr. Brown reports on the pottery of his region as follows:—

“About thirty-five specimens of the earthenware vessels of the Wisconsin
Indians are now in existence. Most of these have been described and
figured in the _Wisconsin Archeologist_. The largest of these vessels in
the J. P. Schumacher collection at Green Bay is twenty inches in height
and twenty-two inches in diameter at the widest part. It has the great
capacity of two and one fourth bushels. The smallest specimen is in the
H. P. Hamilton collection and is of about the size of an ordinary cup.

“Other pottery objects found in Wisconsin include pipes, a few beads,
and perforated discs made of potsherds.”

I am indebted to Professor Holmes for Figures 637 to 646, 659, 660, 662
to 667, 675, 677, and to Mr. Moore for Figures 668 to 674.

CHAPTER XXXIII
HEMATITE OBJECTS

The hematite beds in various portions of the United States furnished the
Indians with paint and with implements. Hematite, like copper, being
different from other materials with which he was familiar appealed to
the aborigine. Its bright red color attracted him, and although he found
most of it very hard, yet he made use of it to a remarkable extent when
one considers how refractory it was for him to work. Hematite is found
on the surface in large quantities in portions of Missouri and Arkansas,
in western Virginia, Ohio, and elsewhere. Most of the hematite seems to
come from Missouri. It was common there, and therefore the native made
of it grooved hematite axes, which he did not do elsewhere in this
country. One supposes that hematite was exchanged and bartered with
remote tribes. Just as in the case of copper, the natives of Louisiana,
Mississippi, Indiana, and Michigan prized their hematite highly and made
of it their most perfect plummet-shaped ornaments, hematite celts, and
such other objects as it was possible for them to manufacture. The
softer kinds of hematite were ground into paint, and there are
frequently found on the village-sites along the Ohio River small blocks
of hematite worn to flat surfaces. There is in the Arkansas region a
very hard blue-red or blue-gray hematite. How the Indians cut this into
symmetrical oval plummets has always been a mystery to me. If the rough
nugget was ground by means of other stones or sand, one is scarcely able
to conceive how the finished article was produced. The process must have
been long and laborious, much more so than the manufacture of an effigy
pipe, or the making of a problematical form.

[Illustration:

FIG. 690. (S. 1–1.) Eight hematite objects from the Andover
collection. In the upper right-hand corner is a hematite pebble,
polished on two of its angles and rough on the other side. This
illustrates how hematite was cut and ground until reduced to the
desired shape. Flint scratchings are still plain on the surface.
Just beneath it is a triangular bit of hematite. This is of soft
hematite. The flat surface may be due to grinding in order to obtain
paint. Beneath are two hematite cones. The four specimens to the
left represent hematite objects in various stages of manufacture.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 691. (S. 1–2.)

These are from the collection of George Y. Hull, St. Joseph, Missouri.

1. Celt from mound, Andrew County, Missouri. Smooth and well made but
not polished.

2. Plumb much pitted by age, surface find, Callaway County, Missouri.

3. A fine truncated cone used as a paint-grinder. Top of cone is worn
and depressed from use. Surface find, Callaway County, Missouri.

4. Finely polished celt, surface find, Doniphan County, Kansas.

5. From an old grave near the village-site at Wathena, Kansas.

6. Axe with flat top and flat side,—a surface find, Callaway County,
Missouri.

7. From an old village-site at King Hill, St. Joseph, Buchanan County,
Missouri.

The difference between the celts is self-evident, numbers 1 and 4
being square, and 5 and 7 oval.
]

The hard gray hematite referred to resists the knife and will wear an
ordinary file in a short time, yet in the altar mounds of the Ohio
Valley, and in the older graves (not graves of the historic period) are
found numbers of these slender hematite plummets (see Fig. 700) worked
from the hardest and most refractory iron ore. It is unfortunate that
the earliest tribes known to the voyagers and explorers in this country
had no hematite objects in use among them. If so, I fail to find
references to such objects. This is unfortunate because hematite
certainly was considered as more than of passing importance. It is quite
likely that because it was so difficult to deduce it to the desired
shape the so-called plummets were made use of, as Dr. Yates suggests, as
stones used in certain ceremonies, or by shamans, or as charm-stones. I
have seen unfinished hematite plummets, but cannot work out a
satisfactory theory as to their manufacture.

[Illustration:

FIG. 692. (S. 1–5.) This figure illustrates three grooved axes in the
lower row; an unfinished hematite implement of unknown purpose and a
hematite nodule above. Hematite axes are frequently found in
Missouri, but seem rare elsewhere in the country. The groove may
entirely encircle them, or be faintly indicated on the back. But
usually they are grooved entirely around. The one in the lower
left-hand corner has a broad, sharp, cutting edge. Naturally,
because of its hardness, hematite made excellent axes. They retained
their edges longer and more nearly approached the modern iron axe
than any other aboriginal tool.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 693. (S. 1–2.) Hematite objects from the collection of Dr. Henry
M. Whelpley, St. Louis, Missouri. Hematite plummet to the left,
grooved axe in the centre, a hematite cone to the right, a celt in
the lower right-hand corner.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 694. (_S. about 1–3._)

_Group of nine grooved hematite axes, from eastern and central
Missouri. Collection of F. P. Graves, Doe Run, Missouri._
]

I have presented a series of figures covering all the known forms of
hematites. No classification was attempted by the Nomenclature
Committee, and the following is of my own make:—

Elongated or oval │ Plummet-shaped. (Fig. 700.)
hematites. │
„ │ Egg-shaped. (Fig. 699.)
„ │Egg-shaped, flattened. (Fig. 697, lower row.)
„ │ Cone-shaped. (Fig. 697, upper part.)
─────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────
Edged hematites. │ Celt form, oval. (Fig. 691, specimens 5 and
│ 7.)
„ │ Celt form, beveled edge. (Fig. 693, lower
│ right.)
„ │ Axe form. (Figs. 694, 695.)
─────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Irregular forms. (Fig. 701.)
│ Paint-stone hematite. (Fig. 690, second from
│ the top.)

Hematite being valuable, may have served several purposes and doubtless
did. The small celts might have been set in the heads of war-clubs and
securely gummed in place. I have no particular evidence as to this, but
have always believed that some of them were so used. Occasionally, one
finds hematite ornaments and hematite bicaves. The information one is
able to impart with reference to hematite implements and their use is an
illustration of the disadvantages under which we labor in dealing with
some of our archæological problems. There are certain phases of
prehistoric life with

[Illustration:

FIG. 695. (S. 1–2.) Two of the best grooved axes I have ever seen are
shown in this figure, from the collection of Mr. Braun, East St.
Louis, Illinois. There is one in the National Museum, and one in the
New York Museum, each of which weighs over ten pounds, and they are
nearly as symmetrical as Mr. Braun’s largest axe.
]

which we are familiar. Others we know nothing of save as we learn by
continuous study, by gleaning a fact here and there from the specimens
themselves, and from exploration.

[Illustration:

FIG. 696. (S. 1–1.) A beautiful hematite axe from the collection of
Henry M. Whelpley, St. Louis, Missouri. This was found in central
Missouri.
]

In the collection at Andover there are about four hundred hematite
objects. The collections in the Smithsonian and American Museum of
Natural History are much larger. Doubtless we should be quite surprised
if we were able to reconstruct the past and see to what use these
strange iron ore specimens were put by the natives who worked so long
and laboriously to bring them into a state of perfection.

Mr. C. E. Brown, reporting on the hematites of his region, states:

[Illustration:

FIG. 697. (S. 1–2.) Hematite cones. Collection of H. M. Whelpley, St.
Louis, Missouri. Localities: Missouri, Illinois, and Arkansas.
]

“A small number of implements made of this material have been obtained
in Wisconsin. These include a grooved axe, a number of celts, several
cones and plummets, a gorget, and a pipe. The total number of specimens
of all classes at present known to exist in local collections does not
exceed thirty specimens. Nearly all come from southern Wisconsin
counties. Several specimens have been obtained as far north in the state
as Winnebago County. It is likely that some of these hematite implements
were introduced into the state through early trades with middle
Mississippi Valley tribes.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 698. (S. 1–2.) Hematite cones. Collection of Henry M. Whelpley,
St. Louis, Missouri. From Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas.
]

Hematite objects do not seem to have served as tools—save perhaps as
celts and axes—but on the contrary they are of the problematical class.
The bright color of the stone and its peculiar properties doubtless
appealed to stone-age man. The fact that hematite celts are found in
graves and mounds and also hematite plummets, whereas ordinary stone
axes are seldom, if ever, found in mounds or graves, would strengthen
the hypothesis that objects made of this peculiar stone were considered
apart from the ordinary run of artifacts.

[Illustration:

FIG. 699. (S. 1–2.) Hematite plummets, grooved in the centre.
Collection of Henry M. Whelpley, St. Louis, Missouri.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 700. (S. 1–2.) These objects are also from the Andover collection
and show the various types of plummets. In the centre is a fine
plummet of steel gray hematite, very hard. Beneath it, a hematite a
trifle softer in which there are some flaws. At the top, an
unfinished hematite pecked and ground into shape, but not polished
or grooved. On either side of the centre, ruder hematite plummets,
and at the top, to the left, a grooved hematite object, the groove
extending around the longest periphery of the object. To the right
is a small plummet, grooved in the centre.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 701. (S. 1–1.) This ornament is made of hematite. It is
remarkable in that both ends are decorated by notches. On the upper
end there are eleven notches or incised lines; on the lower or broad
end there are fourteen lines. This specimen is not a type but an
anomaly. It is of heavy, pure hematite and not of stone discolored
by iron oxide as are many of the ornaments. It was extremely
difficult to work because of the density and hardness of the
material. Aside from these facts this form is peculiar. The edges
are slightly beveled. The specimen shows unmistakable evidence of
antiquity because of the patina, and the cuttings (striæ) are
irregular and have been made with flint and not with steel. Ross
County, Ohio. Andover collection.
]

The reduction of the harder hematites to symmetrical plummets and cones
must have been a severe task for workmen possessed of no metallic tools.
Truly the ancient artisan who had the patience to cut and grind gray
hematite (the hardest of all) “worked at his task with a resolute will.”
It must be remembered that there are not a few but hundreds of these
hematite problematical forms worked from most refractory iron ore.

CHAPTER XXXIV
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS

After one has attempted to describe and illustrate most of the types of
ancient artifacts occurring in America, one discovers that there are
numerous objects which scarcely fall under any of the classifications.
These I have placed under this chapter devoted to miscellaneous objects.
At some future time I hope to consider these at greater length, for it
will be quite possible to devote an entire chapter to the club and
paddle-like implements of the Pacific Coast, another to the slate knives
of New England, and additional ones to the arrow-shaft straighteners, or
the cup-stones—all of which are illustrated in the ensuing pages.

In Figs. 702, 703, and 703 _A_ are shown some of the curious stone club
and paddle-like implements of the Pacific Coast. Reverend H. C.
Meredith, a collector of some experience in California, called these
“stone ceremonial swords,” and described those shown in Fig. 702 as
follows:—

“This figure shows two rare ceremonial knives. No. 2 is of fine
sandstone, about sixteen inches long, with a broad blade that is reduced
to a sharp edge. It was found on a village-site near Vacaville, and
would make a formidable weapon.

“No. 3 is a double-edged and beautiful specimen. The material is mottled
green and white serpentine. It is finely polished, and not much less
than eighteen inches long. It is in the collection of Mr. A. B. Carr,
Etna Mills. Two specimens similar to this one, but not nearly so fine,
are in the Jewett collection. All three specimens are from Siskiyou.
Like the chipped ceremonials, these knives are of extreme age, if not
prehistoric. Work of this class is not done by the Indians of to-day.”

Whether the paddle-shaped implements in the two following figures are to
be considered as “ceremonial swords,” I am not sufficiently familiar
with California archæology to state.

Fig. 703 presents three remarkable specimens from Oregon and Colorado;
collection of E. D. Zimmerman, Kutztown, Pennsylvania. The purpose of
these strange objects is unknown to me. They are wrought with
considerable skill and evidently performed some function in ancient
times.

[Illustration:

FIG. 702. (S. 2–7.) Stone ceremonial knives. California. Collection of
A. B. Carr and H. C. Meredith.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 703. (S. about 1–3.) Stone clubs, from Oregon and Washington.
Collection of E. D. Zimmerman.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 703 _A_. (S. about 1–5.) Stone club from near Florence, Lane
County, Oregon; found on a village-site about three miles from the
Pacific Ocean. A duplicate club was found at the same place later.
Collection of A. F. Barrott, Owego, New York.
]

Fig. 704 _A_ illustrates four of the curious club-heads, or perforated
stones, common in California and Arizona. Various theories have been
advanced as to these; the most sensible of which appears to me to be the
statement that they were made use of as weights, to facilitate the use
of digging-tools or sticks. There is some reason for the acceptance of
this theory, as the discs are found in regions where the raising of
crops by means of irrigation was known to the natives.

Fig. 705 is an illustration of a singular tool-handle, somewhat common
near the Columbia River and farther north along the Pacific Coast. A
fine one is in the possession of Dr. John Fargo of Los Angeles,
California, and it is identical with this one.

Slate was made use of by the New England Indians not only for arrow- and
spear-points but knives as well. Fig. 707, reproduced from Dr. William
Beauchamp’s article,[31] shows nine slate knives from sites along the
Seneca and Oneida rivers and Oneida Lake, western New York.

In Fig. 710 are figured two beautiful slate knives from the Peabody
Museum collection, Salem, Massachusetts.

I was very fortunate in procuring for examination the remarkable
specimen shown in Fig. 711. It presents a woman’s knife of black slate
in the original handle. When Mr. B. W. Arnold of Albany went north to
Alaska some years ago, he found this knife in the hands of a woman who
was using it in cutting open fish. He purchased it from her and placed
it in his collection. It illustrates the method of mounting.

[Illustration:

FIG. 704. (S. about 1–3.) Three remarkable specimens from Oregon and
Colorado. E. D. Zimmerman’s collection.
]

The handle is crudely cut out of wood, and the only things modern about
it are the strings which hold it in place, they being ordinary twine.

[Illustration:

FIG. 704 _A_. (S. 1–3.) Four curious club-heads or perforated stones,
common in California. Beloit College collection.
]

But perhaps as interesting as any other of the objects are the oval and
flat stones with creases or depressions across them, which are supposed
to be the result of straightening or reducing arrow-shafts,
lance-handles, and other long, slender objects. All of those shown in
Figs. 706, 708, and 709 exhibit differences. Those in Fig. 706,
collected by Professor Montgomery, are neatly made and ornament-like in
shape.

Mr. Bardwell’s specimen, Fig. 708, is an ordinary bit of sandstone on
which there are two deep grooves at right angles. We have a number of
them in our Andover collection, and I have shown five in Fig. 709.

Most archæologists agree that the stones were used for the purpose
named. Near caverns, rock-shelters, and along bluffs we find that the
surface of gritty stones or ledges exhibit such grooves. Fig. 712 is a
sinew stone, or an oval stone much creased and worn, not by friction
caused by arrow-shafts, but because sinews or cords have been drawn back
and forth against the edge of it. There is another singular grooved
stone in the State Museum of Iowa. The curator calls it a stone
“corn-sheller,” and if one will draw an ear of corn back and forth over
the surface of this stone, one is surprised at the ease with which the
kernels are removed. Fig. 715 illustrates three unknown objects found in
Pueblo Bonito. Fig. 716 is interesting in that it may or may not be a
natural formation. It was found on the site of an old encampment and may
have been considered by the Indians a medicine-stone. Figs. 717, to and
including 721, I shall refer to in the Conclusions of “The Stone Age.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 705. (S. 1–4.) Stone tool-handle. Collection of Frank O. Putnam,
Campbell, California.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 706. (S. 1–2.) Grooved sandstone arrow- and needle-sharpeners
found near the surface of a mound, North Dakota. Collection of Henry
Montgomery.
]

I wish to speak at some length on Fig. 713. This specimen is one of the
cup-stones about which there has been so much discussion. It is
something over ten by seven and a half inches in diameter, and on the
upper surface are fifteen distinct cup-shaped depressions. It is of
sandstone and about two inches thick.

[Illustration:

FIG. 707. (S. 1–1.) Slate knives. New York State Museum collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 708. (S. 1–1.) Grooved stone found on the island of Martha’s
Vineyard by Ralph D. Bardwell. Collection of Robert D. Bardwell,
Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 709. (S. 1–2.) Grooved stones found in various parts of the
United States. Phillips Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 710. (S. 1–2.) Slate knives. Peabody Museum collection, Salem,
Massachusetts.
]

A great deal has been written about cup-stones, as reference to the
Bibliography will attest. The pitted hammer-stone, the cup-stone, and
the crude discoidal are more or less related. Cup-stones themselves have
never been satisfactorily explained, and it is my opinion that such ones
as are shown in Fig. 713 mean more than that they were ordinary
depressions in which nuts were cracked. However, one must do justice to
those who believe that they were used for that purpose. There is a
suggestion along the lines of that theory which I would wish to make.

The Indians used large quantities of hickory-nuts, walnuts, and
butternuts. The early historians tell us that they threw these into
kettles of hot water; the oil rising to the top, they skimmed it off for
future use.

[Illustration:

FIG. 711. (S. 1–1.) Slate knife in handle. B. W. Arnold’s collection,
Albany, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 712. (S. 2–3.) Sinew stone found near New Berlin, New York, on
the surface. Collection of Henry W. Bagg, New Berlin, New York.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 713. (S. 1–3.) Cup-stone from the Mohawk Valley, western New
York. Phillips Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 714. (S. 1–4.) Stone corn-sheller(?); made of gray quartzite. The
plane surface is eight by fifteen inches. Shows fractures on nearly
all sides, as though it had been much larger. The corrugations have
a sharp, cutting-like edge. Found in a creek in Kansas. Collection
of the Historical Department of Iowa.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 715. (S. 1–6.) A stone, with square hole (for unknown purpose), a
sandal last, and a stone sword from the Chaco Group. Phillips
Academy collection.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 716. (S. 1–2.) Cup-stone. Collection of Logan Museum, Beloit,
Wisconsin.
]

On such a stone as is illustrated fifteen nuts could be placed at one
time and crushed by a single blow of a heavy, flat slab. If they used
cup-stones for this purpose, they would naturally employ stones in which
there were many cups rather than the average stones containing one or
two cups. If so used, the work proceeded rapidly; one person crushing
and two others placing the nuts in position. As the stone weighs no more
than six or seven pounds, it could be quickly raised and the contents
dumped into a receptacle.

[Illustration:

FIG. 717. (S. 1–2.) Skull from a Florida shell heap. (See page 351.)
Peabody Museum collection, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 718. (S. 1–1.) Grooved stone axe from Allington, Washington
County, Wisconsin. Collection of the Milwaukee Public Museum.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 719. (S. 1–5.) A group of bird-stones, boat-shaped objects and
other problematical forms. J. T. Reeder’s collection, Houghton,
Michigan.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 720. (S. 2–3.) Problematical forms from near Burlington, Vermont.
Collection of G. H. Perkins.
]

[Illustration:

FIG. 720 _A_. (S. 1–4.) A group of mound pipes. L. W. Hills
collection, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
]

But while this may be true, it has always seemed to me that the pitted
stones may be made use of in some way as controlling or regulating the
apparatus used in drilling. While all the details of such an explanation
were never clear, yet it seemed more plausible than the statement that
the stone was used as a common nut-cracker. There is another observation
to be made which, it seems to me; militates against the theory that it
was necessary to work out circular depressions in order to make a
nut-cracker. If one will select a flat, smooth slab and place a dozen
walnuts upon it, and strike with another flat slab evenly upon these
nuts, one finds that they are crushed quite as completely as if placed
in the cup-stones proper. The Indians wished the oil rather than the
kernels; and preferred the nuts completely crushed. And for all
practical purposes in nut-cracking, two flat surfaces are fully as good
as a surface which has been cupped. Again, stones having deep pits on
their surfaces prevent the crushing of more than half of each nut. If
one studies the cup-stones carefully, one will observe that some of the
pitted stones are very smooth, others may be rough. In the exact centre
of the pits is a small depression. In some instances this depression
appears as if it was the result of a revolving object; in other words, a
drill. I cannot believe that the cracking of nuts in these depressions
would produce the effect just described.

[Illustration:

FIG. 721. (S. 1–2.) Front and side view of an effigy in stone.
Collection of Edward Beatty, Santa Rosa, California.
]

CHAPTER XXXV
THE STONE AGE IN EASTERN CANADA, UTAH, AND DAKOTA

(_Written for “The Stone Age” by Henry Montgomery, Ph.D., University of
Toronto_)

EASTERN CANADA

For the most part throughout Ontario, Quebec, and the more eastern
provinces of the Dominion of Canada, the ancient stone and bone and
other objects of handiwork of the aborigines are similar or nearly
similar to those found in the New England States of the Union. There
are, however, some exceptions more or less marked. The history of the
seventeenth century tells some interesting things about the aboriginal
peoples of this part of Canada. To some extent the location and
movements of the Algonquins, Hurons, and Iroquois (“Five Nations”) have
become known. But the knowledge of these and of their predecessors in
that region is far too limited. Much remains to be learned about the
occupation of the country during the preceding centuries. Archæological
work appears to have revealed several occupations, and the implements,
utensils, and ornaments of different tribes have probably been mixed.
Hence, it is often difficult to distinguish them with certainty.

Some of these objects of manufacture have been found uncovered upon the
surface of the ground, or partially covered by the soil; others have
been dug or ploughed out by the farmer and road-maker in their
operations; and other artifacts as well as human skeletons have been
taken from pits or excavations six to eight feet in depth. In only a few
localities of eastern Canada have mounds been discovered containing
specimens of the work of ancient or prehistoric man. There have been
found, however, numerous aboriginal village-sites with many bits of
pottery, caches of charred corn, and various sorts of kitchen refuse and
primitive domestic tools and ornaments.

The following are the principal kinds of ancient artifacts found in this
part of the Dominion:—

Bone articles, such as needles, awls, knives, scrapers, and harpoons.

Shell objects, mostly made from marine shells which had been obtained in
tropical or sub-tropical seas.

Rude chert, quartzite, and flint objects, some of which are
ovate-leaf-shaped, much like the form of certain palæoliths of Dordogne,
France.

Drills or borers made of chert and quartzite.

Arrow-heads of chert, quartzite, and flint, barbed and unbarbed, and of
various forms.

Spears of slate, often having the tang laterally serrated.

Stone knives and scrapers, rude or well-finished; generally made of
limestone or of chert.

The chert used in the manufacture of scrapers, drills, and arrow-heads
was doubtless procured from the Devonian rocks in southwestern Ontario,
where it occurs in abundance near Lakes Erie and Huron.

Stone axes and adzes, often called “celts.” These are usually made of
amphibole and hornblende, related minerals, one a light-green and the
latter dark-green in color, and both being hard, tenacious, and durable.
Occasionally, however, celts of gneissoid material are found. In nearly
all cases these wedge-shaped axes or celts have good form and are highly
polished. No doubt they were sometimes used as spades or digging-tools.

Well-made gouges, of the same minerals as those in the “celts,” also
occur in many localities.

Pipes of sandstone, limestone, and quartzite. Usually these exhibit good
workmanship. Examples from Ontario are not wanting in which the bowl
alone consists of stone, each having a horizontal opening for the
insertion of a bone or wooden stem. Some have a perforation at the
bottom bored diagonally, probably for the suspension of an ornament.
Occasionally one is found having stem and bowl in one piece, and these
are chiefly made from a comparatively hard variety of steatite or
soapstone. Such are more frequently found northwards toward Hudson Bay,
and they may perhaps be referred to the Eskimo, as steatite is used by
this people in the manufacture of pipes as well as of culinary utensils.
A pipe made from Mexican or Utah onyx, and having a human face-mask
carved upon it, has been found in southwestern Ontario.

Gorgets. These are of many kinds as to their form and also the stone
from which they are made. Circular, oval, cylindrical, tubular, and
elongate flattened forms occur. The last-named are often nearly
rectangular, flat, polished pieces of stone, perforated by one, two, or
three holes. These are sometimes known as banner-stones. The smaller
ones may have been used as ornaments in the head-dress, a cord of the
hair of the head being fastened through one of the perforations, and
feathers inserted in the others. The banner-stone with a single central
perforation is somewhat rare, those with two or three perforations being
more numerous. Banner-stones of reddish hematitic slate have recently
been found here; but striped Huronian slate from the rocks of northern
Ontario is the usual material from which they have been fashioned.

Amulets, charms, or ceremonial stones. These are bird-like or
animal-like in shape, or rather they have the form of some imaginary
animal partly avian and partly mammalian. There are holes bored
diagonally through portions of the lower side, apparently for suspension
of these stones by strings. Amulets are usually three or four inches
long. Most of them are regularly formed and beautifully polished. The
material is Huronian slate. But one recently obtained by the writer is
of limestone, and has a length of nineteen inches, a height of six
inches, and a thickness of five inches. The holes are large and extend
from side to side in the upper part of what represents the neck and back
of the bird.

Copper artifacts are not uncommon in Ontario and some other eastern
localities, although they are not at all plentiful. The material is
native copper from Michigan in the vicinity of Lake Superior.
Occasionally native silver occurs in spots throughout the article.
Well-formed celts or axes, and spears are found. Knives and beads also
occur. The copper celt often has a flat side and a sloping raised side,
the latter consisting of two flat faces sloping laterally from a central
longitudinal elevation. Both sides of the spear slope toward the edge in
a similar manner; there is a tang for insertion into a wooden or other
handle, and there are usually two lateral projections at the base of the
blade. The beads are of two kinds, namely, small, circular beads rudely
fashioned, yet in shape somewhat like the ordinary modern beads of white
people; and the long, thin leaf of copper loosely rolled, to constitute
a small tube through which the string had to pass.

Pottery or earthenware objects. The pottery of this region is greatly
broken. It consists principally of sherds or fragments of vessels of
different sizes and designs. There are, however, a few perfect vessels
of pottery, and there are many unbroken pottery tobacco-pipes here. The
forms of the pipes and their decorative designs are numerous. Some of
these are shown in Fig. 434, Toronto University collection.

With regard to the date of the aforesaid objects of man’s handiwork, it
may here be stated that none of them are very recent, and that only the
simpler forms, such as some of the arrow-heads, scrapers, and skewers,
were made within the last four or five hundred years. There can be
little doubt that most of them were made many centuries ago; although,
of course, many of them may have been used in more recent times by the
aboriginal successors of their manufacturers.

THE PLAINS OF WESTERN AND CENTRAL CANADA

In the region of the great plains between Lake Superior and the Rocky
Mountains the prehistoric artifacts differ greatly from those of eastern
Canada. Here are many earthworks of the ancient mound-builders, some of
which have yielded characteristic mound products, differing considerably
from the stone-age relics of the East; and in this region also are found
large numbers of grooved hammers and mauls rarely found in Ontario and
Quebec. In Ontario the stone “celt” or wedge is very common; but in
Manitoba, with the exception of the extreme eastern part of the
province, the celt is practically absent. With its decline and
disappearance farther west, and especially towards the borders of
Saskatchewan, the grooved hammers appear in great numbers, and in a
great variety of forms and sizes. Stone discs and grooved axes likewise
occur on the plains. Another stone tool absent from Manitoba is the
amphibole gouge, of which well-formed, beautiful specimens occur in
Ontario and farther east.

Stone hammers and mauls. The hammers and mauls are long and short, broad
or thick, and narrow, nearly uniform in thickness, or else tapering more
or less toward one end. Most of them are between four and six inches in
length, but some have been found almost a foot in length and six inches
in thickness. These latter are, of course, very heavy, and must have
been used in pounding or splitting hard or tough, heavy substances. The
correct name for such is beetle, maul, or mallet. One specimen of a
grooved hammer found in the region is made from a true hematite nodule
and is only three fourths of an inch in length. Some mauls and hammers
have a complete continuous groove near the middle of the stone; but in
most cases there is half an inch or more ungrooved, the furrow ceasing
at the point from which the handle of the implement is directed. The
usual rocks employed in their manufacture are gneiss and granite; but
limestone and amphibole sometimes occur. Ungrooved mauls and hammers
have been found, and occasionally one almost spherical in shape. No
fluted specimens have been reported.

Stone discs. Circular stone plates or discs are not of frequent
occurrence in this region; yet quite a number have been found. Like the
beetles and hammers, they are generally turned up by the farmer’s plough
in the cultivation of his farm. These discs are made of fine-grained
sandstone and gneissoid rocks, and a few have been found bearing
carvings upon them. In a measure these Manitoba discs remind one of the
interesting stone discs and plates of Alabama described by Mr. Clarence
B. Moore, but they are usually of a simpler type than those of the
South.

Stone spade or shovel. In a mound in 1907 the writer found a stone
implement which strongly resembles the modern shovel in form and size.

Stone axes. Only a few axes are known here, and they have prominent
ridges bounding the central encircling groove.

Arrow-heads of quartzite and flint are tolerably numerous. Very few
examples have been taken from the earthworks, nearly all having been
discovered by digging or ploughing the soil. Most of the latter are
rudely finished, while those discovered in the older mounds usually
exhibit superior workmanship.

One specimen of blade or unbarbed arrow-head in the possession of the
writer has a well-marked patina over its entire surface. It is about
three inches in length, and an inch and three quarters wide at its base.
Its material is translucent flint or agate. The patination of this flint
artifact must have required a long period of time, perhaps one thousand
years or more. It was ploughed out of the prairie at a depth of five or
six inches.

A few flint scrapers have been collected.

Pipes of stone. These are straight tubular bowls made of catlinite or
red “pipestone” from Minnesota, beautifully formed and polished. They
have been found only in the burial-mounds, and they do not at all
resemble the modern Indian pipes.

Objects made from bone. These are not numerous in this district. They
consist chiefly of bone skewers and awls, whistles made from the ulna of
the wing of the eagle or other large bird of flight (see Fig. 528), bone
armlets and beads. The armlets have holes by which they were evidently
laced or fastened upon the arms, and they are usually decorated by
grooves and notches. They are made from broad, flat bones, generally the
scapulæ of the larger animals. A bone blade or knife is sometimes found.
A comb-like hide-dressing bone tool, an arrow-nock, and primitive bone
beads have been recently taken from mounds by the writer. Only a very
few simple ornaments of deer antler have been found.

Shell objects. There is a variety of articles here made from sea-shells
and river-shells. A large spoon is made from one of the valves of the
shell of the fresh-water mollusc Unio. But the majority are ornaments,
and are made out of univalve shells from the ocean. Oblong, flat
pendants, large circular rings, oval, circular, and tubular beads of
shell occur.

Objects of copper consist chiefly of thin sheets of native copper rolled
in such a way as to form tubular beads. Sometimes larger pieces of rude
sheets of copper have been found. This copper must have been brought
from some locality near Lake Superior, where copper-mining was carried
on in prehistoric times.

Pottery or earthenware objects. Numerous fragments of pottery bowls,
dishes, cups, and other vessels occur in some localities, usually in
fields where the sod has been ploughed for the first time, and where the
location is convenient to a stream or lake. Occasionally pottery sherds
have been found at greater depths, even to two or three feet. In such
cases they were evidently covered by olay and sands deposited from the
overflow of the waters in some former period of time, no doubt many
centuries ago. In some of the most ancient burial-mounds a few perfect
vessels of pottery have been discovered. These are small urns with
flaring rims and more or less decoration, the principal part of which
consists in most instances of a continuous, deep groove running spirally
around the entire body of the vessel.

Only one example of a pipe made of pottery has yet been reported from
this region. This is a large pipe, having bowl and stem in one piece,
found by the writer in a burial-mound in 1908. Both the stem and bowl
are decorated with grooves.

The urns here referred to and the straight tubular stone pipes
previously mentioned are precisely similar to most of those found by the
writer in numerous mounds in Dakota some years ago. The shell articles,
pendants, rings, and beads also afford strong evidence in support of the
view that they who reared most, if not all, of the mounds of Manitoba
and North Dakota were one and the same people.

THE STONE AGE IN UTAH

The remains of prehistoric and ancient people hitherto discovered in
Utah consist principally of the ruins of various houses in the cliffs
and valleys, and the contents thereof. Besides these there are ancient
irrigation ditches of some size and importance in the southern part of
Utah. There are also petroglyphs or rock carvings of various kinds upon
the vertical faces of many of the rock cliffs; and what appear to be
tracks or prints of the human foot in volcanic rock have been found in
one or two places.

While the houses whose ruins occur in the broad valleys of Utah vary in
size and in the number of rooms, and also in the structure of their
floors and the interior finish of their walls, they may all be regarded
as belonging to the same class of mud or adobe structures. The
cliff-houses, however, differ in so far as some are stone buildings,
others mostly adobe, and others small caves just large enough for
occupation as dwellings or for use as storage-bins.

The more important artifacts obtained from the ruins of Utah are here
enumerated and described:—

_Objects made of Wood_

Wooden pail or bucket, from a cave (see Fig. 632). This is formed by
digging out a piece of the trunk of a tree.

Flails of several shapes are found. These are from three to four feet
long, and have one end wide and flat for a length of fifteen to eighteen
inches. They were used for beating the yucca plant and cedar bark in
making yarn or thread. Doubtless some of these wooden articles may have
been used also for digging in the earth.

Two atlatls from this region have been described, one by Professor Otis
T. Mason in 1892, and the second by the present writer in 1894. (See
_The Archæologist_ for November, 1894, “Prehistoric Man in Utah,” by
Henry Montgomery.) The latter atlatl or throwing-stick had two loops of
rawhide and a shallow groove upon it. There had been a piece broken off
the upper part.

Wooden pipes were discovered in 1894, along with mummies and relics, in
cave-house ruins in eastern Utah. These are nearly ovoid in shape; the
passage is not curved or bent; and they have short bone stems cemented
in position for use.

_Textiles_

Knitted and plaited articles occur.

Corn-sacks made of the fibre of the bark of the cedar tree have been
obtained by me in the caves of some of the canyon Cliff-Dwellers.

Baskets, mats, and sandals, chiefly of yucca fibre, have been found with
the bodies of half a dozen mummies and elsewhere in caves in eastern
Utah. These show artistic skill in their manufacture. In January,
February, and March, 1894, Mr. C. B. Lang made an important collection
in three caves of San Juan County, Utah, which he asked the writer to
examine at that time and to make report thereon to the scientific and
other journals. With that end in view I made an examination and had a
number of photographs of the collection made. Only a few of these were
used in publication. Some of the remaining unpublished photographs are
herein reproduced for the edification of our readers. (See Fig. 631,
pair of leggings, and Fig. 634, birch bark.) Mr. George H. Pepper
described a number of similar articles from other localities in Utah,
and referred them to a distinct race or tribe to which he gave the name
“basket-makers.” As sacks and mats of much the same character have been
found by the writer in other caves along with the ordinary
Cliff-Dweller’s artifacts and skeletons, the propriety of separating
these people from the Cliff-Dwellers proper seems, for the present at
least, somewhat doubtful.

_Feather Objects_

Robes and mantles or shawls made of the feathers of wild turkeys were
also taken from cave-house ruins in eastern Utah. Several mummies were
found clothed with such feather robes, and some wearing sandals of yucca
fibre, and others having deerskin coverings upon their feet.

_Bone Objects_

Pipe-stems, pieces of hollow bone of suitable length, cut from the
hollow wing-bones of birds.

Skewers and awls of bone are numerous.

Circular and oblong pieces of bone. No doubt some of these were used in
playing games.

Beads of bone of various sizes.

_Objects made from Teeth_

Beads made out of teeth, probably of the mountain lion, an animal which
is present in considerable numbers in the Wahsatch and Uintah Mountains.

_Shell Objects_

Beads made out of shells from the ocean.

_Stone Objects_

Metates and rubbing-stones, for grinding maize. These corn-grinding
mills are often quite large, and sometimes weigh as much as a hundred
pounds. In the year 1892 the writer found a heavy metate in a
cliff-house in a place one thousand feet above the stream in the bottom
of the canyon, and in a spot very difficult of access.

Arrow-heads of obsidian, chalcedony, and quartz. They are mostly small,
barbed, and well-formed. Many of them are translucent, and some are
transparent. Both obsidian and chalcedony occur in nature in southern
Utah.

One straight pipe-bowl of catlinite was found in a cave-house in San
Juan County. This may perhaps indicate intercourse with the tribes of
Dakota or Minnesota.

A nearly pear-shaped pipe-bowl of beautifully polished onyx was found
with mummified human bodies and wooden flails and fibre mats in a cave
in eastern Utah (see Fig. 436). It had a stem of bone in position,
fastened in place by some sort of black cement or fireproof substance,
which also lined the inside of the pipe-bowl.

Stone mauls and hammers are to be mentioned as occurring in Utah. They
are generally provided with a groove in which the pliant, tough, wooden
handle is fastened.

Grooved stone axes likewise occur.

Oblong and other-shaped pendants and ornaments of turquoise and green
variscite have been found in the valley houses.

_Pottery Objects_

Pipe-bowls of several kinds, straight and curved. Some well-formed
pottery pipes were found by the writer in 1890 in valley-house ruins.

Balls an inch or two in diameter made of partially baked clay. Probably
used for games of some sort.

Vessels in the form of bowls and jugs. The bowls are of regular form,
well glazed and tastefully decorated with painted designs, mostly on the
inside.

The jars have one or two handles, and are of many sizes, some being very
large. Occasionally the jars are highly embellished externally by
painted designs of various and interesting kinds. Similar bowls, jars,
and pipes of pottery are found in both the valley- and the cliff-house
ruins.

That the people who built and inhabited the cave- and cliff-houses and
the valley houses were one and the same race of people can hardly be
doubted. This was pointed out by the writer in 1894. The stone
corn-mills, the pipes, the arrow-points, the bowls and jars of pottery,
are similar. The house structures were, of course, slightly different,
owing to the difference in their environment. But both peoples were
agriculturists, both built small rooms or houses for storing corn,
gourds, water, and implements, both had arrows for defense and the
chase, and both manufactured superior pottery similar in the quality of
the material and also in decoration.

THE STONE AGE IN DAKOTA

The former Territory of Dakota included that portion of the country now
forming the States of North and South Dakota.

The ancient specimens of handiwork in the Dakota Territory of the early
“eighties” comprised surface “finds,” which were mostly stone mauls,
hammers, and axes, rude bone and pottery articles of old village-sites,
and also various kinds of mound products.

The principal artifacts are here enumerated:—

_Hide and Bark_

Leather or tanned hide, found occasionally in mound burial-pits.
Although evidently very old, it appears to have been carefully tanned,
and to have been part of the hide of a buffalo.

Baskets made from the bark of the birch tree. These are small and are
nearly all of similar pattern. Usually the basket consists of but one
piece of bark cut in such a manner that it could be bent and fashioned
into a neat basket and stitched together where the parts overlapped.
Sometimes two and even three rows of holes are present, showing great
regularity, and that a small needle and thread must have been used in
the work.

_Objects made from Deer Antlers_

Pear-shaped deer antler pipe-bowls, three and one half inches long, and
two and one fourth inches wide at the top, have been found by the
writer. (See Fig. 428, F.)

Deer antler, perforated near one end.

Deer antler tyne, perforated and notched. Perhaps this served as a
message stick.

Deer antler tyne, peculiarly cut and furrowed. Probably a tool. (See
Fig. 542.)

_Bone Objects_

Bone harpoons for spearing or catching large fishes such as the Great
Lake pike of Devils Lake.

Bone anklet, with ornamental carving, and having holes near two opposing
margins for lace-strings, and other holes perhaps for the attachment of
ornaments.

Bone tubes or pipe-stems, cut from the hollow bones of birds’ wings.

Bone awls, needles, and knife-blades.

_Shell Objects_

These comprise objects made from fresh-water shells as well as those
made from ocean shells.

Among these are the following:—

Circular pearly ornaments like buttons, with a central aperture and four
marginal notches at regular intervals. Large pearly shell rings thicker
and wider on one side. (See Fig. 543, E.) Usually more than twenty of
these rings have been found together near a human skull and in such a
position that there seems no doubt they had formed the principal part of
a necklace.

Oblong pearly pendants, notched near one end for the cord of attachment,
and decorated with four or five notches on the other extremity. (See
Fig. 528.)

Long beads made from the columella of shells of the ocean gasteropod,
_Fulgur perversa_, of frequent occurrence also in the mounds of the
Mississippi Valley. (See Fig. 543, D.)

Small shell beads made by grinding the ocean shells Nerita, Natica, and
Marginella on the shoulder of the spire. (See Fig. 543, G.)

Scoop or spoon, made from a valve of the bivalve mollusc Unio, the
common fresh-water mussel. This has a very short handle cut on it, and
it is ornamented with a few notches on the margin.

_Stone Objects_

Sharpening-stones. Ovoid objects made of coarse sandstone and having a
groove in the centre of one side. These were for sharpening bone awls
and needles and probably for grinding shells and other articles into the
desired shapes.

The stone mauls and hammers were plentiful in the southern portions of
Dakota; but were absent from a large part of the Territory near the
forty-ninth parallel. Most were grooved near the middle, and they varied
considerably in size and shape. There were also some grooved stone axes,
some of which possess a prominent ridge beside the furrow and upon the
side between the furrow and the edge end of the axe.

Barbed flint and agate spears. Some are very large. All are translucent
and exhibit workmanship of a high order. They are found in the
burial-mounds, and are very rare. (See Fig. 214 A.)

Flint and agate arrow-heads. Only a very few of these occur. They are
also well made.

Effigy stones. Two slender stone serpents have been reported from South
Dakota. One of these is said to have six curves or convolutions.

Stone pipes. (See Fig. 428.) These are made of catlinite or red
pipestone, and are regularly formed and beautifully polished. They are
all straight tubes constituting bowls, and vary in length from two to
ten inches. One taken out of a mound by the writer was ten and one
quarter inches long (twenty-six cm.). The stem was at least in some
cases made from the hollow ulnar bone of the wing of a large bird; for
bone stems of this character were found with several of the pipes.
Hollow pieces of wood may perhaps also have been used as pipe-stems.
This straight tubular pipe is very characteristic of the mounds of North
Dakota, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, very few of other kinds having as
yet been reported from this prairie region.

Stone tablets. Flat pieces of stone are sometimes found; but they are
very rare. One of these found by Montgomery in 1889 is made from
pipestone or catlinite and has the figure of an animal carved upon each
side. (See Fig. 310.) One of the carvings is probably meant to represent
a beaver, and the figure upon the other side of the tablet is a
representation of a buffalo cow with open mouth, and the figure of a
stone spear-head with shaft attached, pointing to the heart. It would
seem to indicate that the buffalo had been shot in the heart by the
spear or large arrow, and in consequence the mouth is represented as
being wide open. Some, however, interpret the position of the spear and
shaft to mean the “line of life,” which may possibly be the correct
interpretation. Another tablet found by Montgomery in a burial-mound has
the figure of a beaver carved upon each side, one representing the upper
surface of the animal, and the other being a side view.

_Objects of Copper_

The articles made of copper are few in kind and number. They are chiefly
simple cylindrical tubular beads and rudely formed spear-heads of native
copper.

_Objects of Pottery_

The writer has found a number of vessels of pottery in the burial-mounds
of northern Dakota. All of them are small urn-shaped vessels of coiled
ware, and almost all of them were found in a perfect condition. In most
cases their decoration is a continuous spiral groove around the body of
the urn, terminating near the centre of the bottom of the vessel. In a
few instances the decorative design is different; and some are provided
with four holes in the rim for suspension by cords.

On the Mandan village-sites and in the more southern parts of Dakota
many fragments of pottery jars and vessels are found. These have various
incised decorative designs, and in some cases ears or small handles are
present. Much of this pottery closely resembles the pottery of the
eastern part of the continent.

_Objects of Unbaked Clay_

There have been tobacco-pipes of unbaked clay found by the writer in the
burial-mounds of this region. One form of these consists simply of a
bowl with a straight tubular passage. (See Fig. 429.) It is nearly of
the same design as that of the catlinite pipe.

A second kind (see Fig. 429) has stem and bowl in one piece and is bent
or curved so that the stem is at right angles with the bowl as in modern
pipes. These pipes, like some of the catlinite pipes taken from the
ancient mounds, showed evidence of much usage, there being a
considerable incrustation or deposit within the bowl from the burning of
kinni-kinnic of some kind.

While some of the artifacts herein enumerated and described were
undoubtedly made by Sioux and Mandan Indians, it appears quite certain
that the products of the mound burial-pits, that is, the spirally
grooved urns, the tubular pipes, antler tynes, and sea-shell ornaments,
belonged to some other ancient tribe, possibly to the ancient Arikaras,
or to a yet earlier tribe.

CHAPTER XXXVI
CONCLUSIONS

Naturally, the Conclusions to “The Stone Age” are somewhat long, and
while I have embodied them all under two chapters, yet they have been
grouped under subdivisions, as will be observed by readers.

THE POPULATION IN PREHISTORIC TIMES

We should first consider a subject which has been given, it would seem,
scant attention. I refer to the fact that generally throughout the
American continent are unmistakable evidences of a considerable
population in ancient times. At present there are about three hundred
and sixty thousand Indians in the United States and Canada. Perhaps more
than half of these show the effects of marriage with whites or negroes.
The population of to-day is no criterion of that in ancient times. In
studying field evidence of population, we must bear in mind that the
Indian of both periods made use of perishable materials. This is an
essential fact to be noted during the course of our studies. Much that
both the historic and prehistoric Indian made use of was composed of
cloth, iron, wood, brass, leather, etc. It is quite true that the wood,
leather, cloth, etc., of prehistoric times would disappear, but the
stone, bone, shell, clay, and copper objects remained. Iron rusts
quickly, and the use of iron was widespread from the time of the
settlement on the New England coast (1620) down to the present. A great
deal of iron was introduced by De Soto in Florida, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas; and by Coronado in the Southwest. Both of
these expeditions were in the years 1540–1543, and on them hundreds of
Spaniards penetrated into the interior carrying thousands of objects,
chiefly of iron. All of this must have had an effect on the natives
throughout a considerable portion of North America.

I have elsewhere referred to the difference between historic and modern
sites, but the subject is important and has been, it seems to me, passed
over or not appreciated by others, and it is necessary to emphasize the
difference between the ancient and the modern again. The significant
fact is that all of this iron has disappeared leaving here and there a
streak of rust, and that upon the modern sites were left quantities of
glass beads and other objects that are not perishable. These were in use
among the natives, yet few of these things remain; the only exception
being noted in the sites of the Iroquois of western New York, where the
modern artifacts predominate.

In previous articles I have called attention to the fact that on the
four or five Shawano sites in the State of Ohio, there were large bodies
of Indians assembled during the period embraced between (roughly) 1700
and 1812. These Indians helped to make American history. They were
fairly numerous, of unquestioned ability, and produced such men as
Tecumseh and his brother the Prophet. Their leaders, Tecumseh and
Cornstalk, were engaged in twenty-two actions with our troops; numerous
traders were among them, and they sent many expeditions against the
frontiers. Yet, if one walks over these populous sites of historic
times, one finds practically nothing save here and there a glass bead or
a broken tomahawk.

In any one of perhaps two or three hundred places where prehistoric
villages occurred, an observer may find great quantities of chips,
spawls, broken implements, broken pottery, etc. The needs of ancient man
were few, his implements simple and confined to the types illustrated in
this work. Therefore, the presence of the unnumbered evidences of human
residence indicates either a great length of occupation, or large
numbers of Indians for a short period of time.

I never believed that the population in America exceeded one million
(north of Mexico) at any time, assuming that the field evidence is
against the statement so often made that there are as many Indians in
America to-day as at the time of the discovery.

If the Ohio Valley had been occupied by mound-building people when La
Salle and Hennepin made their voyages of discovery, these worthy and
zealous explorers would have made reference to it in their reports. But
La Salle and Hennepin heard of the great Illinois towns on the river of
the same name in that state and journeyed from Quebec to visit those
towns. There were thousands of Indians living in the Illinois country,
but Ohio appears to have had little population—that is of Indians, and
none whatsoever of mound-building people.

Between Aurora and Lawrenceburg, Indiana, if the Ohio River has not
during a recent flood covered the bottoms with silt, there may be seen a
village-site nearly three miles in extent. I visited it in 1898 and
collected upwards of three thousand specimens from the surface in a
week’s time.

The Indian population was most numerous on that great artery, the
Mississippi River and its tributaries. Perhaps we have not fully
recognized the importance played by this “Father of Waters” in
prehistoric times. Throughout the Mississippi Valley are several
climates varying from extreme cold in northern Minnesota to the
semi-tropical of Louisiana; from the aridity of the foothills of the
Rocky Mountains to the salubrious climate of Tennessee; from the cold of
the extreme Northwest to that of Pennsylvania. The Mississippi Valley
comprises altitude and sea level, mountains and plains, every kind of
soil and every specimen of plant and animal life found in North America
above the City of Mexico.

It would appear that man had penetrated to the heads of every stream
tributary to the Mississippi. Through the Colorado basin, throughout the
length and breadth of all the Southern rivers; to the rivers of New
England, the great St. Lawrence basin, and the Red River of the North,
and even far Yukon in Alaska,—these primitive stone-age people carried
their simple arts and established their villages. In the Cumberland and
Tennessee valleys such multitudes of them lived that even after a
hundred years of ruthless destruction of the stone grave cemeteries,
there still remain thousands of unopened sepulchres.

Apropos of these stone graves, General Gates P. Thruston, of Nashville,
who has studied ancient man in Tennessee more than forty years, reports
by letter to me as follows: “I think that there must have been forty
thousand graves within twenty-five miles of Nashville. I should think
there were probably at one time as many as one hundred thousand
prehistoric inhabitants in the two valleys. The village-sites and
cemeteries cannot be numbered.”

The officials at Washington have underestimated, it seems to me, the
number of Indians in the United States, because they have recorded the
Indian of the historic period rather than the Indian of the past. De
Soto and Coronado both reported continuous population throughout the
regions traversed by them. Yet shortly after the year 1700 small-pox,
measles, cholera, and other diseases destroyed entire tribes. Untold
thousands of our Indians perished during these epidemics. The case of
the Mandans is well known. The early colonists made frequent reference
to the spread of these plagues throughout the country.

[Illustration:

FIG. 722. (S. 1–2.) Views of an unknown object of stone, found in 1885
on a ranch on the Columbia River, Oregon. W. F. Parker’s collection,
Omaha.
]

Fourteen years ago I compiled an archæologic map for the State of Ohio;
the last entry being made in 1897. At that time there were 3292 various
monuments and village-sites recorded. Since then Professor Mills has
continued the work and added to the total. Constant travel over the
State of Ohio in the past years leads me to believe that there were in
ancient times at least twenty thousand monuments great and small in that
state.

All considered, the population in North America in pre-Columbian times
must have been considerable during two or three thousand years, if not
for a longer period.

THE STONE AGE IN HISTORIC TIMES

It is unfortunate that Coronado, De Soto, Captain Smith, Hennepin,
Marquette, and the Pilgrim Fathers did not give us more detail about
stone-age times. When these explorers, or adventurers, or colonists came
here, many of the Indians were still in the stone age. One of the best
references that I have seen is that by Coronado’s historian, who states
that in the mountain region along the Colorado River there lived many
wild tribes who were barbarous; “eat human flesh, worship painted and
sculptured stones, and are much given to witchcraft and sorcery.” These
men represented savage and not barbaric stone-age times. They appear to
have been exceedingly fleet of foot, great hunters, very courageous, and
quite different from later Indians. The historian, speaking of one of
these tribes, says:

“The third language is that of the Acaxes, who are in possession of a
large part of the hilly country and all of the mountains. They go
hunting for men just as they hunt animals. They all eat human flesh, and
he who has the most human bones and skulls hung up around his house is
most feared and respected. They live in settlements and in very rough
country, avoiding the plains. In passing from one settlement to another,
there is always a ravine in the way which they cannot cross, although
they can talk together across it. At the slightest call five hundred men
collect, and on any pretext kill and eat one another. Thus it has been
very hard to subdue these people, on account of the roughness of the
country, which is very great.”

It has been known for many years that the Seri Indians living on an
island in the Gulf of California are still in the stone age. Professor W
J McGee, of the Bureau of Ethnology, visited these Indians and wrote a
long report concerning them.[32] This book should be read by students,
as it gives an insight into what prehistoric times must have been. McGee
states a number of interesting facts which I repeat, with some changes,
in condensed form.

The Seris are bitterly opposed to foreigners, and he considers “their
race sense is perhaps the strongest ever known.” This is due to their
living alone and apart on this small island away from other tribes. They
had bitter experiences with the cruel Spaniards nearly three centuries
ago, which was a contributing factor in bringing about this condition.
They use shells, with which the sea-front abounds, for knives, cups,
dishes, dippers, and other utensils.

The natural, water-worn pebbles need no chipping or fashioning to make
of them hammers and crushers. Occasionally some of these implements
exhibit a little work to bring them into better shape. The seacoast
abounded in thousands of water-worn stone objects, of such forms as made
them convenient for use by the Seri Indians.

Practically no chipped implements occurred. McGee searched patiently but
found only two, both of which were arrow-points. The water-worn stones
were used in the hand and not hafted, the aim serving as the handle.
“The Seri are wonderfully quick in using these stones”—the motions being
faster than if one held the end of the handle in which the stone was
fashioned. The social organization of these people is very peculiar. The
oldest women are matrons who seem to dominate each community. In the
case of the best-looking young woman of the tribe, who would not be
photographed, the matron commanded that she permit a picture to be
taken, and she, who had strenuously objected, at once consented. When
any of these people marry with aliens, they are outlawed or driven away
from the other Seri.

The graves of the Seri are simple pits in which the body is placed with
accompaniment of objects belonging to the deceased in life. If such
burials—near the surface—were made in very ancient times in more moist
or humid climates, it is certain that all bone and other perishable
objects would have disappeared and only the stone things remained. We
would then be unable to determine that a grave once there existed, and
it is possible—I do not say probable—that such graves may have been made
in times of extreme antiquity in the North or South, and that all of the
softer substances and bones have disappeared. In that event, these
graves of an early culture would not appear to us as graves, but as a
small cache of rude implements.

Aside from these two references I have found a few others, but because
of limited space, I am unable to present them here.

Dr. Charles Peabody kindly furnished me with an interesting statement
regarding the use of the bicaves or discoidals, which is herewith
submitted:—

“At the Village of the Houmas. There are eighty cabins, and in the
middle of the village a fine level square, where from morning to night
there are young men who exercise themselves in running after a flat
stone which they throw in the air from one end of the square to the
other, and which they try to have fall on two cylinders that they roll
where they think that the stone will fall.”[33]

THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN AMERICA

We should consider quite briefly this subject. As was remarked on pages
32–4, man may have occupied America in times of great antiquity.
Personally, I cannot understand how all the different Indian dialects
developed in comparatively recent times. It would seem that several
thousand years at least were required for so many and diversified
tongues to have developed among our aborigines.

Not being a geologist, it would be presumptuous for me to pass opinion
on questions in which geology played prominent part. What little is
offered, therefore, is based upon study of man’s handiwork and
distribution of his implements rather than upon geologic evidence. There
has been not a little said concerning the observations of Mr. Ernest
Volk and Dr. Charles C. Abbott in New Jersey, as both of these men have
labored for many years near Trenton, upon fields and in the sands and
gravels. Recently Dr. Abbott published three pamphlets.[34] There are
some personalities in these pamphlets which might have been omitted, and
one or two statements to which some persons might object. But on the
whole these three pamphlets sum up all of Dr. Abbott’s observations
during the past thirty years, with reference to New Jersey archæology
and the antiquity of man in the Delaware Valley.

Waiving these minor considerations, which no broad-minded man would
treasure up against Dr. Abbott, we may safely assume that both he and
Mr. Volk are real archæologists. That is, they understand conditions as
they existed in ancient times, and that is something that few men of
to-day grasp. It cannot be learned from reading the reports, from
studying in museums, or through obtaining a degree from one of our
universities. Both Volk and Abbott have worked hard. There was no fuss
made about it. It was a continuous grind day after day, week in and week
out, year upon year.

[Illustration:

FIG. 723. (S. about 1–3.) A remarkably well-preserved gourd water-jug.
Found in the ashes of Salts Cave, Kentucky. B. H. Young’s
collection, Louisville, Kentucky.
]

No man can dig a pit in the ground and fill it up so that it conforms to
the surrounding natural strata. Such a place always shows disturbed soil
or clay. Walk along the riverbank, where the water has washed out a line
of fence and left the marks of the post-holes, and observe; note
gravel-banks anywhere in this country where aborigines buried in graves,
and as white men haul away the gravel and expose the bank, one is able
to see clearly defined the outlines of the graves. The same is true of
the holes of burrowing animals and of tree-roots, etc. The beds of
streams mentioned by Dr. Abbott in his work play an important part in
archæology. When the implements found in them were lost, the streams
were active. Since then they have filled up. The character of one
deposit in the Delaware Valley investigated by Abbott and Volk differs
from that of another, and the differences are so striking, the deposits
being in the one place sand, and in another place glacial clay, in
another place river gravel, that one cannot but believe that a
considerable period of time elapsed between these various cultures.

In many sections of the country are found not only chipped implements,
but other implements heavily coated with patina, which is an
incrustation accruing by time alone. There are other worn specimens
which appear very old. Select some of these and compare them with
objects from the Mandan or Iroquois sites, or even from the mounds in
the Ohio Valley, and one will observe the apparent difference in the age
of these specimens. The Mandan pottery and some of the Iroquois pottery
are even at this late date coated with soot. There is no soot on the
mound pottery. Along the Atlantic Coast, and in the South, flint
implements are sometimes coated with patina. In Florida shell heaps are
occasionally found skeletons at great depth. Mr. Clarence B. Moore
considered the lower strata of the larger shell heaps to be very old.

There was a skull found by Dr. Wyman during the course of his
exploration many years ago in the base of a shell mound in Florida.[35]
I present a picture of it in Fig. 717. The cranium is heavily incrusted
by cemented shells. Such a burial must be of great age.

These shell heaps accumulate very slowly during the occupancy of the
sites by many generations of Indians. This skull, and the skull found at
Lansing, Kansas, at a depth of twenty-five or thirty feet, and other
finds, are evidences of considerable antiquity. Dr. Hrdlička has said
that the Lansing man was of the same type as the modern Indian. This
does not mean that it is modern, for Assyrian and Egyptian crania five
or more thousand years old have been taken from the tombs, and it would
require experts to distinguish them from crania of living people.

Prof. Edward H. Williams, Jr., of Woodstock, Vt., suggested to me that
an expert analysis be made of the surface of certain problematic forms
and ornaments finished and unfinished. Therefore, I gave to Prof.
Williams some forty objects from our Andover collection, and he made a
careful examination, as did his friend Prof. John D. Irving of Lehigh
University, who is secretary of the Geological Society of America, and
an expert in such matters. Some of these specimens are found to be old,
a few very old, and others more or less recent. I shall quote a few of
his observations. The numbers refer to catalogue numbers in our books:—

“22517—From Georgia. This is a fine-grained diabase. Prof. Irving
reports that the ophitic structure is very well marked. This object has
been buried for some time, and the surface is weathered, and has been
pitted since it was worked.

“23449—Syenitic Gneiss. The feldspar had begun to kaolinize before the
pebble was worked. Since working the surface has been considerably
etched, and the hornblende is left rising above the surface. This black
mineral has also been decomposed since working, and the iron component
has rusted and stained the horn.

“34772—Extremely fine-grained muscovite schist with grains of magnetite.
This was weathered before working, and the magnetite has almost wholly
rotted to soft dark spots. There was some etching of the surface since
working.

“4137—Foliated greenish talc. The lighter pits and scratches are recent.
The surface is darker than the fresh fracture, and shows age and
handling.

“18414—This is a much decomposed rock of the trap variety, which has
become so weathered and softened that it has become almost entirely
chlorite. It looks very much like an argillite. It belongs to one of the
‘greenstone’ rocks.”

As to the exact number of years required for this weathering, it is
impossible to state, but since these specimens were considered from a
geological and mineralogical point of view, and critically analyzed by
two entirely competent men, it is safe to assume that a few hundred
years would not account for the disintegration. I do not know whether
these things are a few hundred or several thousand years old, but the
analysis shows that the stone weathered to some considerable extent, and
this would be indication of age. It would be interesting to analyze some
of the Iroquois objects and to compare.

The different cultures in America would appear to be evidence of the
antiquity of man. One cannot imagine that the Cliff-Dwellers and
mound-building tribes, that the stone-grave people, or the cave people
in the Ozarks, or the shell-heap people of Florida, or the Plains
tribes, and finally, the woods and mountain Indians, who never made any
monuments of any description—that all these cultures developed in a few
hundred years. They are so totally different, and are so influenced and
modified by climate and local conditions, that it would appear plausible
that several thousand years must have elapsed before these sharp lines
of distinction developed. Again, while all Indians have skins more or
less red, the variation in physical appearance among our aborigines is
surprising. No one could fail to distinguish an Ojibwa from an Iroquois,
or a Sioux from an Apache, or an Osage from a Seminole, even if one had
no knowledge of Indian language or customs. Environment and habitat must
have influenced these tribes and affected their stature and physical
conditions.

ADAPTATION TO CONDITIONS

Among our American aborigines one trait stands out prominently, and that
is the art of adapting themselves to existing and local conditions and
environments. Perhaps no race so readily appreciated that it must depend
entirely upon its own resources. We find, therefore, that it is
immaterial whether the native Americans live in Maine or in Florida, in
North Dakota, or Texas; they selected the most available materials. If
the stone was easily chipped or of such consistency that it could be
made use of, they adopted that stone for certain implements. If the
stone was refractory and not easily chipped or worked, they did the best
that they could with it. Therefore it is not always a criterion of poor
workmanship nor does it indicate low degree of culture if the implements
are crude and roughly and imperfectly made. It even means that there is
no good material at hand and that the Indians selected the best they
were able to secure and worked it out as well as they were able. Again,
in certain sections implements made of good material are to be found,
also of poor, coarse, local materials. Frequently the good material was
transported from a distance. It may have come through trade or by means
of conquest. That is immaterial. The point is that the natives naturally
preferred materials more easily worked, but that they were not always
able to obtain them. It is quite likely that few of the tribes were
friendly in prehistoric times. The natives of a given river valley may
have desired the better material to be found two or three hundred miles
distant from their habitat, but because of the hostility of the nation
living in that section where better material could be obtained, they
were unable by either trade or conquest to obtain it, and had to be
content with such unsatisfactory chert or other stone as occurred in
their immediate locality. I think that this factor entered largely into
prehistoric life.

But if no suitable stone could be obtained, the Indians made use of bone
or other substances. In several references to the Mandan village-sites
in this work, the point was made that the Mandans used the large bones
of the buffalo for a multitude of purposes. This was because suitable
stone was scarce, and for the further reason that the bones were more
easily worked and shaped than stone. In certain sections of the
Mississippi Valley where materials of all kinds were in abundance many
varieties of stone, shell, etc., were employed.

The readiness with which the native adapted himself to conditions is
shown in the house structure of the Indians. Those of cold climates
lived in very different structures from those of the South. And the
Plains Indians employed skin coverings, whereas the woods Indians made
use of bark or of logs, and the Pacific Coast Indians used quantities of
hewn boards.

This is an interesting subject, and could be followed at considerable
length did space permit.

ART IN ANCIENT TIMES AND MODERN ART

Too much has been made of the presence of stone and bone tools among
modern tribes. While there have been numerous instances of such clinging
to old forms, yet students of modern Indian life, by their constant
reference to these recurrences, have given a wrong impression to the
world.

It is generally known and accepted that art passes through periods of
transition. As an example one might cite the Renaissance. No student of
art would confuse the Renaissance with an earlier or later period.
Examples of earlier art still persisting during the early Renaissance
are in evidence. But as the influence of the Renaissance broadened, all
art of that period was affected, or leavened by it, and presently
practically all art was Renaissance.

This is precisely true of Indian art. We search diligently to find an
old, really old Navajo blanket to-day, and we pay a fabulous price for
it. Likewise we search—but in vain—for old wooden bowls, painted buffalo
robes, and feather mantles. The utmost corners of remote South America
are visited by explorers from Harvard, the American Museum, and Berlin
and London museums. Why? To discover primitive man untouched by
civilization in order to record his arts and folk-lore, religion, and
daily life, undefiled by contact with our civilization. Is it found?
Scarcely an example remains—all is tinged and influenced even as the
Renaissance changed the preRenaissance. If one will reflect a moment,
one will agree that this is all true.

Examples of sculptures in stone, carving of shell, effigies in copper,
ceramic art in the Cliff-Dweller country are in our leading museums. I
would recommend readers to go to these museums and compare that real art
with the wretched examples in vogue among the Indians at the present
time.

I have said so much regarding ancient arts in various places in this
book that now I wish to speak more particularly regarding certain tribes
of Indians, among whom I spent the spring and summer of the year 1909,
and contrast their art with stone-age art.

In March, 1909, I was sent by the Department of the Interior to
investigate the condition of the Ojibwa Indians. I returned several
weeks later and was again sent out the first of July and remained on the
White Earth Reservation until in October. Because our work was to
establish who were the full bloods, we came in contact with all the
Indians of the Ojibwa tribe who claim to have no white or negro blood in
their veins.

Among our eighteen or twenty witnesses, who were chiefs and persons
ranging from seventy to eighty-five years of age, and who were familiar
with the history of the Ojibwa, with the parents and grandparents of
those whom we established to be full bloods, were several members of the
grand medicine society, the Midiwewin. These persons were frequently
examined by me through our interpreters—all of whom were the most
competent we were able to procure and the best on the reservation—as to
the past history of the Ojibwa tribe. The old record-keeper, commonly
called Daydodge, but whose real name is Bay-bah-dwung-gay-aush, aged
eighty-two, had a remarkable memory. To him had been related all the
Hiawatha traditions by the Indians, and he was able to carry back
history about one hundred and twenty years. This man told me that there
were few, if any, stone implements in use among his people when he was a
boy, and he did not think that stone objects were in use to any extent
when his grandparents were children. He said that occasionally a woman
hafted a stone celt and used it in scraping or cutting, that some stone
mallets were to be found when his grandparents were young, but he
thought that the French and English traders’ goods had displaced all
stone articles in use among the Ojibwa.

CHAPTER XXXVII
CONCLUSIONS

THE ANCIENT CULTURE-GROUPS

As Major Powell found many linguistic stocks in North America in recent
times, so we find quite as many cultures in ancient times. But the
language of these people being unknown to us, we must study them through
their implements. Some of these are widespread, while others are local.
Consider, for instance, the saddle-shaped or bird-shaped stones, of
which numbers are illustrated in chapter XXV. These, after great study,
one must conclude originated in a certain tribe long ago. It is not
proper to call them Iroquois, or Delaware; if they existed in historic
times one might be more correct in stating that the Eries, or the Snake
People, referred to by the Delawares in their Lenni-Lenape tradition,
made and used them. Certainly they are not Iroquoian in character. Their
very distribution would indicate that they are a product of Northern
people of stone-age culture. As against this the bicave and discoidal
stone is of central South culture and not of New England, the North, or
West. Under other chapters I have presented some conclusions, and these
will not be repeated here. Axes, flint implements, copper (by Mr.
Brown), and several other divisions of artifacts have been already
separated into their culture-groups. At the present writing there are so
many new types on exhibition in public and private collections which
formerly were considered products of individual fancy, that it is quite
difficult for one to determine the number and extent of the prehistoric
cultures in the United States.

However, one must make a beginning. In presenting what appears to me to
establish various local cultures, I am quite aware that future
observers—when the knowledge of this intricate subject is more
widespread—may add or detract from my observations. The cultures
mentioned, therefore, must be considered in the nature of pioneer
observations, subject to development or change as archæologic knowledge
expands and becomes more perfect.

In New Brunswick and Maine and about the mouth of the St. Lawrence there
are the ever-present flint implements and chipped objects, and also
numbers of slate points, which may be either problematical forms or
winged spear-points and arrow-heads. Many of the slate points found by
Mr. C. C. Willoughby in graves at Oldtown, Maine, appear to me to be too
long and slender to have made effective weapons. Yet they may have
served as such. The adze and gouge and the adze-blade celt are numerous
in New England. I have commented on the types of chipped objects and how
they differ in various sections of the country, so that it is not
necessary to re-enter upon a lengthy dissertation on this question.

In New England proper, the region east of the Hudson River, the slate
points are not common, and gradually disappear west of the Connecticut
Valley. But the adze and the gouge and the long roller pestle abound in
numbers. There are also strange effigies of whale, and rude effigies so
rough that one does not know what the maker intended to represent.
Plummet-shaped stones are also common. But the slate gorget and
ornament, and the bell-shaped pestle, the discoidal and bicave, and many
other forms, are almost wanting. The pipes are not common and far
inferior to those of the Ohio Valley and Middle South and the South. New
England, then, may be divided into two culture-groups, that east of the
Merrimack River and that lying between the Merrimack and the Hudson.
These are related to each other, but differences may be observed.

The next culture-group is that of eastern Canada, north of Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario. All of this region is marked by Iroquois influence, and
the tribes preceding the Iroquois left exceedingly crude and rude
handiwork in stone. The forms which may be considered to be
pre-Iroquoian are very like those of the Lake Champlain district. A
splendid collection of them is on exhibition in the Provincial Museum,
Toronto, where Mr. David Boyle labored for many years to bring about the
preservation of Canadian antiquities.

Between the Hudson and the line drawn between Buffalo, New York, and
Baltimore, there are at least two cultures and indications of one or two
more. In northern New York is the famous Iroquoian culture of which so
much has been written—and by more competent observers—that I would not
dare describe it here.

Suffice it to say that an inspection of the pipes, pottery, bone
implements, etc., from Iroquoian graves and village-sites will acquaint
one even superficially interested in archæology with the fact that the
Iroquoian culture is plainly different from anything else on the
American continent. Whether the Iroquois, previous to their famous
Hiawatha, were organized and had developed this peculiar art is a
question for others to decide. But the freshness of the Iroquoian pipes
and pottery and the general tone of the objects—and by tone I mean that
appearance which most of them possess—indicate that they show European
influence—lead the archæologist to conclude that as to antiquity they
are not in the class with the other objects found in America. It has
always been my opinion that five or six centuries of time are sufficient
to account for their production. None of them look old in the sense that
objects from other sites appear old.

In southern New York and throughout New Jersey and Delaware we have
chipped and polished implements which are supposed to stand for the
prehistoric Delawares, and these types appear, in the main, very old.
They are more than weather-beaten, many of them were on the verge of
disintegration. Time alone can account for such condition. The Delaware
Valley and the Susquehanna must have been ideal places for prehistoric
man. In both the climate was not severe; game, nuts, herbs, fish, and
other necessities of life abounded. A careful inspection of the work
done by Dr. Charles C. Abbott and Mr. Ernest Volk leads me to believe
that these men have, beyond question, established that man lived in the
Delaware Valley three or four thousands of years ago. Rude axes and
peculiar ornaments also abound. The gouge is rare. The adze is scarcely
ever found, while the problematical forms are totally different from
those of the Middle West and the Middle South. The roller pestle occurs,
but it may not be considered a local type. Copper is found in limited
quantities, hematite is almost entirely wanting, and effigy pipes are
very rare. The Weaves, now and then discovered, may be considered as
strays brought in by means of barter or exchange. The projectile points
are as a rule slender, and are easily distinguished from those of New
England, New York State, or Canada. Jasper, argillite, quartzite, and
rhyolite predominate.

The next culture-group is that of central and western Pennsylvania,
wherein many New Jersey and New York State types occur. The
problematical forms, the black chert, arrow-points, the jasper knives,
and the notched hoes or axes may be said to enable one to distinguish
this region from other culture-groups of the East, even if they are more
or less related. West Virginia may be said to lie on the border-line
between Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio. Hematite appears in the
valleys of the Kanawha and other streams in West Virginia. The monitor
pipes also appear, together with certain forms of axes, spear-heads, and
knives which are found in greater numbers in Kentucky and Ohio.

Ohio and Kentucky stand as two separate cultures separated by the Ohio
River. Yet the Ohio River was made use of by prehistoric man from above
Pittsburg to its mouth at Cairo. Along the stream itself one may
discern, on both north and south bank sites, all kinds of cultures, thus
proving that the Ohio River was not only a thoroughfare but _the_
thoroughfare in prehistoric times. It is only when one proceeds up the
streams from the Ohio back fifty or a hundred miles in Illinois,
Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio that one observes how the local cultures
have developed. The culture of the Muskingum and Scioto in Ohio are
practically the same; the Miami is different. The Wabash in Indiana is
yet another culture and the Illinois yet a third. In Kentucky the
Cumberland and Tennessee are in a class by themselves, separate from the
others mentioned. These two latter rivers are so long, and as each is
navigable far into the State of Tennessee, I feel certain that five or
six cultures may be clearly differentiated within their valleys. I have
referred to the stone-grave culture of this region elsewhere. It merits
further detailed study on the part of archæologists.

In the State of Illinois are long yellow chert spear-heads and
lance-heads and knives, some of which have slightly turned points. Many
of these are not unlike the Scandinavian daggers. In Michigan and
Wisconsin there is a wealth of copper, many of the sugar quartz spears
and knives, large numbers of peculiar winged problematical forms which
have been quite fully illustrated in this work. The Illinois and
Wisconsin cultures are separate and distinct.

Northern Illinois contains types of Wisconsin and Michigan as well as
numbers of central Illinois forms. At Sandwich in DeKalb County there is
a large collection owned by Mr. Henry W. Franck, who sent me numerous
photographs of his exhibit. This collection illustrates the mingling of
types of three cultures and is of great archæological importance.

Passing west to the Mississippi in Missouri we have the so-called
hematite belt. Along the Missouri River occur great quantities of iron
ore, and the natives worked this into hematite axes, celts, plummets,
etc. This region of central Missouri appears to be different from
southwestern Missouri. Central and western Missouri (outside of the
Ozarks) are also different from the cultures bordering along the
Mississippi River, or eastern Missouri.

In Kansas and Iowa we have the large notched hatchets which are peculiar
to that section of the country, the white flint of Iowa, the dark chert
of Kansas, and the minute arrow-heads, the small almost square
hand-axes, the profusion of yellow chert and poor jasper hide-scrapers.
These are always typical of the buffalo country. But the strangest
culture, it seems to me, in America is that of the cave region of the
Ozark Mountains, where Dr. Peabody and myself made several
investigations. In southwestern Missouri, northwestern Arkansas, and
Indian Territory, in both limestone and sandstone formation, are some
thirty-five or more natural caverns which had been inhabited by man. In
these are great quantities of ashes and debris. Our inspection of four
or five of these caves, the study of local collections, and an
examination of village-sites in the region revealed the fact that
chipped implements of the village-sites are of different stone from
those from the ashes in the caverns. That man in the Ozark region had no
pipes, no slate articles, no problematical forms, no roller or
bell-shaped pestles, no shell ornaments, no copper, no hematite, no
celts, no grooved axes, etc. I say none, although in the entire region
one slate article, one pipe, and two axes have been found. These may be
considered as brought in by later Indians. The chipped implements are
rough—save here and there a long, slender, well-chipped object; they are
seldom well made. There is a profusion of sandstone mano-stones and
mortars. There is every indication that the culture is extremely old and
very primitive, as stalagmites have formed (notably in Jacob’s Cavern)
over some of the human remains. This Ozark culture, as stated above, was
carefully worked out by Peabody and myself, and was found to be an
anomaly in American archæology. I am persuaded that there are other and
equally peculiar local cultures to be found if one searches diligently.

The Southern culture shows local developments. It is chiefly
distinguished by its pottery, which is different in Florida from that of
Missouri and from Louisiana. The flint implements also differ, as do
many of the types in stone. In Florida stone celts occur, but axes are
extremely rare.

In Texas there is peculiar culture, chiefly of chipped implements of a
rough sort and small minute arrow-points well made, with little or no
pottery, with almost an entire absence of problematical forms, and of
copper, little hematite, etc.

Throughout the entire Rocky Mountain chain, from northern British
Columbia to the Colorado’s headwaters, is a peculiar “mountain culture.”
From this is excepted the Columbia Valley proper, where large pestles
occur, also polished paddle-shaped stones, minute chipped objects, and
various problematical forms. The mountain chain proper (back from the
Coast) is different as to culture, and large chipped discs abound, also
short, round pestles, rubbing-stones, hand-hammers, large grooved
hammers. Eastern types are entirely wanting, and many of the chipped
objects may be distinguished from those of the Coast or the Columbia
Valley.

Stone objects in the Rocky Mountains are not very numerous. This is
explained on the ground that before the coming of the whites it was not
necessary for the Indians to live in the mountains to any appreciable
extent. Naturally, they preferred the valleys in the foothills where
there was more game. The tribes were driven to the mountains by their
enemies. The oldest Sioux have told me (at Pine Ridge) that they never
liked to go into the main range of the Black Hills because evil spirits
dwelt there.

The cultures in the Colorado basin might be divided into several
groups—the Cliff-Dwellers, the Pueblo culture, the Cave-Dwellers, and
the boulder ruin people. These might be classified by Dr. Fewkes as all
belonging to the same class. I do not know with reference to that, but
the implements, the surface indications, and the character of the
burials lead me to suppose that the cave people of southern Utah and the
boulder ruin people of San Juan Valley were to be considered as distinct
from those of the great cliff-houses and of the modern pueblo towns.
There is a wealth of material in this region in the way of fine pottery,
turquoise beads, delicate chipped implements, shell ornaments and
bracelets, etc. We learn much of prehistoric times by exploration in the
cliff-houses, for the reason that the climate is exceedingly arid and
that the objects are placed back in the rooms where no moisture can
penetrate to them, even when it occasionally rains.

Therefore, axes are found in their original handles; wooden tools,
throwing-sticks, and baskets, sandals, knives in wooden handles, mats,
ropes, and other things that would perish in the North or the South, are
preserved. Thus we have splendid opportunity to study how the ancient
man mounted and used these various tools, etc.

Dr. Yates and the late Reverend Mr. Meredith have shown in their
articles[36] that two separate cultures existed on the Pacific Coast,
one in northern, and the other in southern California. In addition to
these there is the famous culture of the Columbia Valley, which is
somewhat different from others. Numerous figures and the delicate
arrow-points in that region have been presented in the foregoing pages.
Along the Northwest Coast there is yet another culture.

The Canadian and Utah and Dakota cultures have been described by
Professor Montgomery in Chapter XXXV. I have run over these various
cultures very rapidly. Much more could be said regarding each one. The
finding of different kinds of implements on a given site may indicate
different cultures, for it is probable that a favorable site was
selected by subsequent tribes after it had been abandoned by the first
occupants. This should be borne in mind by students.

THE STONE-AGE POINT OF VIEW

During the Boston meeting of the Anthropological Association, December
27, 1909, at the conclusion of a paper on “Myths of the Cayapa Indians
of South America,” by Dr. S. A. Barrett, remarks were offered by several
gentlemen, including Dr. Franz Boas. He took occasion to emphasize how
important was Dr. Barrett’s work among a people as yet untouched by
civilization, and as the point of view of these Cayapa Indians was so
different from ours, it was difficult for us to understand their motives
and conceptions. All truly primitive people live in a world so apart and
removed from our own that one should be able by long study to place
himself mentally in that world. Because many observers were not in
sympathy with the thoughts of these primitive peoples, and could not
forget that they (the observers) were the product of a higher culture,
therefore, much misinformation has been disseminated regarding primitive
beliefs and customs. Other ethnologists spoke along similar lines.

The above is a truism that every student of prehistoric times should
realize, and at the risk of wearying my readers I repeat—and I trust
these are not vain repetitions—that we must realize what the term stone
age conveys. Nothing that we have in use to-day was known to stone-age
man—even so common a thing as fire is confined and changed to suit our
will.

Various effigies, polished problematical forms, bright copper, shell or
mica, pottery, textile fabrics, and forms in wood—these were the extent
of his art. He knew no horizon beyond the stone effigy, the ornamented
gorget, etc. A colored stone, piece of copper, or anything in stone
unusual attracted his eye. I believe that these appeared to him
different from ordinary stones. For the same reason he must have
considered hematite as more or less of a mystery. It is very hard to
work, and because of its heaviness and the difficulty of reduction to
desired shape, one may surmise it appealed to him as a “mystery stone.”

It is clear, from the amount of hematite and copper in public and
private collections, that both were highly prized. That hematite was far
harder to work than common stone did not deter the ancient man from
digging, grinding, cutting, and polishing the steel gray hematites (as
hard as any stone) to the desired size. Truly he worked “at his task
with a resolute will, over and over again.” I should like to propose to
any person who has lightly waved aside the skill or patience of the
ancient worker, that that person select a chunk of the hard gray iron
ore (not the soft kind) and set to work with a stone hammer and some
flint flakes and a block of sandstone to make a hematite plummet. A
week’s labor on the specimen will increase the respect of the sceptic
for the stone-age artist.

We are just beginning to appreciate the point of view of the stone-age
man. At present our knowledge is imperfect. Particularly, do I feel this
personally and realize the responsibility resting on one’s shoulders
when one attempts to describe and classify, in a large sense, the stone
implements, etc., of ancient times. Even if one does one’s best, such a
work must, for the present at least, remain a pioneer undertaking, and
those who come afterwards will make of the faintly marked pioneer trail
a broad and substantial highway along which others may travel and find,
I trust, guide-posts unnecessary.

When we realize the point of view, the mind, and the concept of the
stone-age man fully, we shall, quite likely, understand the true import
of the strange problematical polished stones so common in the
Mississippi Valley. These stand for more than mere ornaments. The very
name “ceremonial,” which was afterwards changed by that able
archæologist Professor Holmes to problematical, is a confession of
ignorance. These problematical forms are found in Wisconsin, West
Virginia, New England, Louisiana, Ohio, and Arkansas, and although
varying through a multitude of shapes, yet apparently convey
substantially the same idea. To the people who lived entirely in the
stone-age times, these must have represented certain “sacred mysteries,”
to white men and later Indians entirely unknown. The same is true of the
abnormally large axes in copper or in stone, of the large chipped
implements in Tennessee and on the Pacific Coast. None of these things
could have served a real purpose. One cannot strike or cut with the
“ceremonial swords” shown in Fig. 161, neither can the axe illustrated
in Fig. 263 _A_ be made use of for cutting. Such things as these
illustrate the height or perfection of stone-age art, and we must seek
their explanation and purposes along other lines than those suggested by
common every-day usage, to which the smaller and more easily made
objects were put.

FIELD STUDY NEEDED

Before concluding my remarks on the stone age in North America, I would
call attention to the necessity of more and careful field work, and an
understanding of the difference between various sites rather than
continued museum work, or the reading of reports and publications. That
man who considers arts and crafts of tribes to have been pretty much the
same in America is very ignorant concerning real archæology. It has been
the purpose of this volume to emphasize differences in the arts and
crafts among prehistoric tribes. Archæology is like any other
comprehensive subject; it requires study, discriminating care, and
enthusiasm. One should further add, it requires inspiration. A man who
does not love to hunt specimens for the sake of hunting them has not his
heart in the work.

We have had many mounds examined, plans have been drawn, the skeletons
carefully set down as so many feet from each other. A report is
published in regard to that mound, and instead of intelligent
observations on the meaning of the evidence ascertained, there is
usually nothing but a dry and statistical statement of the distances of
the skeletons from a given point. Of course it is necessary to make a
survey of mounds and other remains. And it is equally important to have
reports, but I do not think that it is necessary to publish field
notes—which are no more than survey notes—and call them a report. Many
of the reports published in recent years have missed the essential thing
in American archæology. They have emphasized the mathematical features
of our explorations. They are as if one published tabulated census
reports, but offered no explanations as to what the number and
assembling of the people in the United States meant. If no conclusions
of value are to be drawn from the exploration of a given site, then it
seems to me that wealthy people who send out expeditions are wasting
their money, and the scientists their time. We are training young men in
our universities and museums to measure mounds and village-sites very
carefully. All this is eminent and proper, but we are losing sight of
the meaning of those same village-sites and mounds and their relation to
others and to prehistoric culture in general.

The explorer Stanley made a statement in his work “Darkest Africa,”
which I have never forgotten. The scientist Emin Bey was much interested
in examining a human skull and measuring it very carefully and setting
down the measurements. Stanley was not interested in the skull. He
wished to know something regarding the life of the man to whom it once
belonged. If some of our students would, for a few years, lay aside
cameras, ground-plans, tape-lines, and get down to real field work, much
more progress would ensue. The study of sites, collections, types, and
local conditions should be placed first, it seems to me.

In _Science_, April 15, 1910, there appeared an open letter written by
Professor B. C. Gruenberg of De Witt Clinton School, New York, along the
very lines I have indicated. I quote a paragraph:—

“We all know that there can be no true science that does not rest
solidly upon facts. But the thought must often occur to many of us that
there is some danger, especially among the younger scientists, that we
may become obsessed with an exaggerated sense of the value of facts as
such. Is there not too much emphasis laid by many professors in charge
of research students on the mere accumulation of observational,
statistical, or experimental facts, with too little attention to that
side of science which concerns itself with those analytical and
synthetic processes that convert facts into valuable ideas? It seems to
me that this latter kind of work needs at the present time at least as
much encouragement as the other. Of course, there is the possibility for
‘thinking’ to degenerate into profitless speculation; but we are
certainly as much in need of the results of thinking about the facts
already accumulated as we are of more facts.”

Such studies as those of Professor Holmes on pottery and quarries; such
explorations as Mr. C. B. Moore’s in the South; the work done by Volk
and Abbott in New Jersey, where they very carefully set aside the
argillite and the quartzite and chipped implements as found in different
places under different conditions; such work as Professor Mills has done
in Ohio in differentiating the Hopewell and the Fort Ancient culture,
are things that will count, and works that will stand. A surveyor should
measure mounds, number skeletons, and draw plans. The librarian should
read reports and compile statistics, but it requires a real archæologist
to do the work that I have referred to above.

Squier and Davis, whose “Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley”
may be justly considered our standard work upon the mounds, not only
explored, but they drew conclusions which, with here and there an
exception, or a slight change, will stand at the present time. For many
years Dr. Cyrus Thomas used all the tremendous energies of the Bureau of
Ethnology to dispute the statements of those hard-working, painstaking,
philosophical pioneers Squier and Davis. To-day we know that the culture
they described is different from the Shawano, Cherokee, or other
cultures which Thomas wished to establish in the Ohio Valley. The work
of that distinguished citizen of Illinois, George Sellars, will bear
comparison with the work of any other man since his day in the study of
chipped flint objects, and if any one doubts the statement let him read
and ponder upon Sellars’s complete narrative in the Smithsonian Report
for 1885, and then read what has been said since by others.

Aside from the technical study of American archæology, there is a
certain charm and fascination in investigation of these ancient remains.
Although it has been thirty years since I found my first arrow-head, I
never cease to feel a thrill of pleasure when, walking about the shores
of lakes or streams, I happen to find one of these evidences of the real
and the simple life. One’s mind, if he is inclined to dwell upon
prehistoric times in America, naturally reverts to the past under such
circumstances, and I close this work with a quotation from Dr. Abbott’s
recent publication, “When as many a day has drawn to its close, while
yet I lingered in the field and every sign of white man’s industry faded
from view, the scattered trees became again a forest, the cry of the
cougar and bleat of the fawn were heard, the bark of the fox and howling
of the wolf filled the air, a lurid light of a camp-fire lit the sky;
the days of the Indian had returned, nor did the illusion pass away
until homeward bound, my hand was on the latch.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

For obvious reasons this bibliography is not complete; to make an
exhaustive catalogue of the titles dealing with the stone age in America
would require the inclusion of many articles in out-of-the-way
periodicals and newspapers that are now lost or out of print; in the
next place, if made complete, even within the limits of possibility,
such a list would require a separate volume out of all proportion to the
dimensions of the present work.

In view of these facts, therefore, the attempt has been made, first, to
give the publications to which reference has been made in the text;
second, to present a list of general works of standard reputation, most
of which are provided either with indexes or tables of contents
raisonnés; third, to give some of the more important series of
publications of individual authors dealing especially with excavations
whose results are germane to the matter of the volumes; and fourth, to
set forth a classified list of references by the use of which a student
can at least learn something about the desired subject and at the same
time may receive suggestions as to the methods and the literature
necessary to further research.

In view of the change in archæological processes and opinions that has
often occurred in a comparatively short space of time, the arrangement
of the titles is made as a whole in chronological order.

GENERAL WORKS

=Catlin, G.= North American Indians. New York. 1841.

=Squier, E. G., and Davis, E. H.= Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi
Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, I. 1847.

=Squier, E. G.= The Serpent Symbol. New York. 1851.

=Baldwin, J. D.= Ancient America. New York. (1871.)

=Foster, J. W.= Prehistoric Races of the United States. Chicago. 1873.

=Jones, C. C.= Antiquities of the Southern Indians. New York. 1873.

=Abbott, C. C.= The Stone Age in New Jersey. Report of the Smithsonian
Institution, 1875, pp. 246–380. 1875.

=Wyman, J.= Fresh-Water Shell Mounds of the St. John’s River, Florida.
Peabody Academy of Science, Fourth Memoir. Salem. 1875.

=Abbott, C. C.= Palæolithic Implements in the Valley of the Delaware
River. Peabody Museum Report, 10, pp. 30 ff. 1877. Peabody Museum
Report, II, pp. 225 ff. 1878.

=Conant, A. J.= Footprints of Vanished Races. St. Louis. 1879.

=MacLean, J. P.= The Mound Builders. Cincinnati. 1879.

=Evers, E.= Ancient Pottery of South Eastern Missouri. St. Louis
Academy of Science. 1880.

=Short, J. T.= The North Americans of Antiquity. New York. 1880.

=Whitney, J. D.= The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of
California. Contributions to American Geology, vol. II. Cambridge.
1880.

=de Nadaillec, Marquis.= Pre-Historic America. Translated by N.
D’Anvers. New York. 1884.

=Mercer, H. C.= The Lenape Stone. New York. 1885.

=McAdams.= Records of Ancient Races. St. Louis. 1887.

=Shepherd, H. A.= Antiquities of the State of Ohio. Cincinnati. 1887.

=Read, M. C.= Archæology of Ohio. Cleveland.

=Wilson, T.= Palæolithic Period of the Stone Age. Report of the United
States National Museum, 1888, pp. 677 ff. 1888.

=Thruston, G. P.= Antiquities of Tennessee. Cincinnati. 1890.

=Fowke, G.= Stone Art. Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, pp. 57
ff. 1891–92.

=Wilson, T.= Primitive Industry. Report of the Smithsonian
Institution, 1892, pp. 521 ff. 1892.

=Berlin, A. F.= Lehigh Island and its Relics. The Archæologist, 1,
Jan., 1893, pp. 13 ff. 1893.

=Nordenskiöld, G.= The Cliff-Dwellers of the Mesa Verde. Stockholm.
1893.

=Schmidt, E.= Vorgeschichte Nordamerikas. Braunschweig. 1894.

=Wilson, T.= The Swastika. Report of the United States National
Museum, 1894, pp. 763 ff. 1894.

Prehistoric Art. Report of the United States National Museum, 1896,
pp. 325 ff. 1896.

Arrow-Points, Spear-Points, and Knives. Report of the United States
National Museum, 1897, I, pp. 811 ff. 1897.

=Thomas, C.= Introduction to the Study of North American Archæology.
Cincinnati. 1898.

=Dellenbaugh, F. S.= The North Americans of Yesterday. New York. 1901.

=Fowke, G.= Archæological History of Ohio. Columbus. 1902.

=Lewis, A. B.= Tribes of the Columbia Valley and the Coast of
Washington and Oregon. Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. I, pp. 147 ff. Index and Bibliography.
1905–1907.

=Abbott, C. C.= Archæologia Nova Cæsarea. Three Pamphlets. Trenton.
1907–8.

=Mills, W. C.= Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Vol. I, 1907.
Vol. II, Part 1, 1909.

=Barrett, S. A.= The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring
Indians. University of California Publications in American
Archæology and Ethnology, vol. 6, no. 1. Bibliography and Map.
1908.

=Randall, E. O.= The Masterpieces of the Ohio Mound Builders.
Columbus.

=Boas Anniversary Volume.= New York. 1906.

=Putnam Anniversary Volume.= New York. 1909.

=Moorehead, W. K.= See last pages of Bibliography for titles.

WORKS MORE PURELY OF GENERAL REFERENCE

=de Mortillet, G. and A.= Musée Préhistorique. Paris. 1881.

=Evans, Sir John.= Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain. London.
1897.

=Hodge, F. W.= Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Part I.
Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, no. 30, part I. 1907.

=Forrer, R.= Reallexikon der Prähistorischen, Klassischen und
Frühchristlichen Altertümer. Berlin and Stuttgart. 1907.

=Schlemm, J.= Wörterbuch zur Vorgeschichte. Berlin. 1908.

=Déchelette, J.= Manuel d’Archéologie, I. Paris. 1908.

SERIAL REFERENCES TO THE WORKS OF INDIVIDUALS

=Boyle, D.= Compare the Archæological Reports of the Province of
Ontario, being parts of the Appendices of the Reports of the
Minister of Education of Ontario. Toronto, from 1887.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= Aboriginal Chipped Stone Implements of New York.
Bulletin of the New York State Museum, vol. 4, no. 16. 1897.

Polished Stone Articles used by the New York Aborigines. Bulletin of
the New York State Museum, vol. 4, no. 18. 1897.

Earthenware of the New York Aborigines. Bulletin of the New York
State Museum, vol. 5, no. 22. 1898.

Aboriginal Occupation of New York. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, vol. 7, no. 32. 1900.

Wampum and Shell Articles used by the New York Indians. Bulletin of
the New York State Museum, vol. 8, no. 41. 1901.

Horn and Bone Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the
New York State Museum, no. 50. 1902.

Metallic Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New
York State Museum, no. 55. 1902.

Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New York
State Museum, no. 73, Archæology 8. 1903.

Perch Lake Mounds. Bulletin of the New York State Museum, no. 87,
Archæology 10. 1905.

Aboriginal Use of Wood in New York. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 89, Archæology 11. 1905.

Aboriginal Place Names of New York. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 108, Archæology 12. 1907.

Civil, Religious, and Mourning Councils, and the Ceremonies of
Adoption of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 113, Archæology 13. 1907.

Erie Village and Burial Sites. Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, no. 117, Archæology 14. 1907.

=Mills, W. C.= Compare the following references to the Ohio
Archæological and Historical Quarterly:

Vol. VIII, pp. 309 ff. Field-Work.

Vol. XIII, pp. 129 ff. Gartner Mound and Site.

Vol. XV, pp. 45 ff. Baum Site.

Vol. XVI, pp. 113 ff. Harness Mound.

Vol. XVIII, pp. 269 ff. Seip Mound.

=Moore, C. B.= Compare the following references to the Journal of the
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia:

Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John’s River, Fla. Part I. 1894.

Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John’s River, Florida. Part II. 1894.

Certain River Mounds of Duval County, Fla.

Two Sand Mounds on Murphy Island, Fla.

Certain Sand Mounds of the Ocklawaha River, Fla. 1895.

Certain Sand Mounds of the Georgia Coast. 1897.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Coast of South Carolina.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Savannah River.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Altamaha River.

Recent Acquisitions.

A Cache of Pendant Ornaments. 1898.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Alabama River. 1899.

Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast. 1900.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the North West Florida Coast. Part I.
1901.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the North West Florida Coast. Part II.
1902.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Tombigbee River. 1901.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of Florida Central West Coast.

Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Apalachicola River. 1903.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Black Warrior River.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Lower Tombigbee River.

Certain Aboriginal Remains of Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound.

Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida. 1905.

Moundville Revisited.

Crystal River Revisited.

Mounds of the Lower Chattahoochee and Lower Flint Rivers.

Notes of the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. 1907.

Certain Mounds of Arkansas and Mississippi. 1908.

Antiquities of the Ouachita Valley. 1909.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BY SUBJECTS

ADOBE.

=Hodge, F. W.= The Archæologist, vol. III, p. 265. 1895.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 302. 1897. (Adobe balls.)

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 205.
1905.

ADZES.

=Crosby, H. A.= Wisconsin Archæologist, July, 1903, pp. 91 ff.
“The Triangular Stone Adze.” 1903.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 298
ff. 1906.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., pp.
296 ff. “New England.” 1907.

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

=Rau, C.= Arch. für Anthropologie, vol. 14, pp. 1–9. A general
paper. 1870.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, July, 1898, pp. 177–8.
1898.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp.
129–130. “New England.” 1906.

ALTARS.

=Putnam, F. W.= Kansas City Review, vol. VII, no. 1, pp. 32 ff.
Ohio. 1883.

=Gordon, G. B.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. I, 1, p. 15.
Copan, Honduras. 1896.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 129.
Tusayan, 1897.

American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., p. 215. 1901.

=Maler, T.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. IV, nos. 1 and
2. Guatemala. 1908.

AMULETS.

=Bourke, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 61. 1890.

=Wilson, T.= Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1891, pp. 144–6.
1891. Bellucci Collection.

=Farrington, O.= Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1900, pp. 199
ff. 1900.

=Hough, W.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1901,
p. 344. Arizona. 1901.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 679.
West Indies. 1903.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, vol. 25, p. 138. Porto
Rico. 1903–4.

=Hamy, E. T.= Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris,
n. s. 2, pp. 323 ff. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= See Science, Oct. 29, 1909, pp. 613, ff.
Ontario. 1909.

See American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p. 470. 1909.

ANCHOR STONES.

=Rau, C.= Prehistoric Fishing, pp. 94 and 192. 1884.

ANKLETS.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Primitive Man in Ohio, p. 110. 1892.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pl. XXXIV.
North Dakota. 1906.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 37. Manitoba.
1908.

ARGILLITE.

=Abbott, C. C.= Archæologia Nova Cæsarea, etc. (Often.)

ARROWS.

=Van Epps, P. M.= American Antiquarian, 1880, p. 57. New York.
1880.

=Rau, C.= Prehistoric Fishing, pp. 56, 83, and 293. 1884.

=Nissley, J. R.= American Antiquarian, 1886, p. 301. Ohio and
Illinois. 1886.

=Smith, H. I.= American Antiquarian, 1889, pp. 249 ff. Michigan.
1889.

=Murdoch.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 64. Glass Arrows.
1890.

=Bourke, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 56. Apache.
1890.

=Mason, Holmes, Hoffman, Hough, Wilson, Flint, Bourke.= American
Anthropologist, vol. 4, pp. 45 ff. A symposium. 1891.

=Dorsey, J. O.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, p. 286.
Omaha. 1891–2.

=Hoffman.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 14, pp. 275 ff.
Menominee. 1892–93.

=Hoffman.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 39. Poisoned Arrows.
1893.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, plates
XXXII-XLVII. 1893–94.

=Waddell, L. A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 94. 1895.

=Cushing, F. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pp. 307 ff.
Bows and Arrows. 1895.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1896,
pp. 325 ff. “Prehistoric Art.” 1896.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 161.
Eskimo. 1896–97.

=Snyder, J. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 231. 1897.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 26.
Distribution. 1897.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1897,
I, pp. 811 ff. A general discussion. 1897.

=Poole, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 45. 1898.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., p.
431. Antler-pointed Arrows. 1901.

=Wilson, T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., pp. 513 ff.
1901.

L’Anthropologie, 12, pp. 568 ff. A classification. 1901.

=Williston.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 335.
Kansas. 1902.

=Moore, C. B.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 40.
Florida. 1902.

=Dorsey, G. A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 644.
1903.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. IV, p. 142. British Columbia. 1903.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 99. Field Columbian Museum, pp. 1
ff. Cheyenne. 1905.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, p. 114. 1907.

=Herrmann, R.= Records of the Past, 1907, pp. 79 ff. Upper
Mississippi Valley. 1907.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 150. 1907.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. IX, n. s., p. 125.
1907.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, pp. 65 ff. 1907.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, pp. 259 ff. 1908.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. II, pt. 3, p. 227. Nez Percé. 1908.

=Straley, W.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 263. Nebraska. 1908.

ARROW-SHAFT STRAIGHTENERS.

=Ehrenreich, P.= Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1900, I, pp. 15 and
24. Ohio and California. 1900.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. 17, 3. p. 134. California. 1905.

ART.

=Whittlesey, C.= American Antiquarian, vol. 3, p. 13.
Ethnography. 1880.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 179 ff.
Art in Shell. 1880–81.

Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 437 ff. Ceramics. 1882–83.

Transactions of the Anthropological Society, Washington, vol. 2,
pp. 94 ff. Shell. 1883.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, pp. 195 ff. Textile Art.
1884–85.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, pp. 13 ff. Chiriqui.
1884–85.

=Putnam, F. W.= Bulletins of the Essex Institute, vol. XVIII, pp.
155 ff. Conventionalization. 1887.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, pp. 9 ff.
Textile Art. 1891–92.

=Fowke, G.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 13, pp. 49 ff.
Stone Art. 1891–92.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, 1893, p. 307. Stone Art.
1893.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1893, pp. 291 ff. The Processes. 1893.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, pp. 1 ff. The Potomac
Region. 1893–94.

=Putnam and Willoughby.= American Association for the Advancement
of Science, vol. XLIV, pp. 302 ff. 1896.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1896,
pp. 325 ff. 1896.

=Boas, F.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, IX,
pp. 123 ff. North Pacific Indians. 1897.

=Wilson, T.= American Archæologist, 1898, pp. 281 ff. 1898.

=Wissler, C.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 340.
1902.

=Boas, F.= Popular Science Monthly, vol. LXIII, p. 481 ff. 1903.

=Wissler, C.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
1904, pp. 231 ff. Sioux. 1904.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California,
vol. 2, 3, p. 159. California. 1904–07.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania,
vol. 1, 3, pp. 132 ff. Serpent Motive. 1905.

=Holmes, W. H.= Boas Anniversary Volume, pp. 179 ff. 1906.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. 2, 3, p. 233. Nez Percé. 1908.

ATLATLS.

=Bahnson, K.= Archiv für Ethnographie, vol. 2, pp. 217 ff. South
America. 1889.

=Seler, E.= Archiv für Ethnographie, vol. 3, pp. 137 ff. Mexico. 1890.

=Rink, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 274. Alaska. 1891.

=Nuttall, Z.= Archæological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody
Museum, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 169 ff. 1891.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 66. California.
1892.

=Montgomery, H.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, pp. 230 ff. Utah. 1894.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 50.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Bushnell, D. I.= Jr. American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 218.
1905.

AXES.

=Stevenson, J.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 375 ff.
Walpi. 1880–81.

=Douglass, A. E.= American Antiquarian, 1880–81, pp. 100 ff. Florida.
1880–81.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, pp. 166 ff. 1892.

=Fisher, A. W.= The Archæologist, vol. III, p. 75. 1895.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, pp. 68 ff. Ontario.
1897.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 21, p. 100. Cliff-Dweller.
1899.

=Peterson, C. A.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 27. Missouri. 1903.

Records of the Past, 1903, p. 351. Iowa. 1903.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 28, p. 227. 1906.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 145. 1907.

=Gesner, A. T.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 243. Minnesota. 1908.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 633. 1908.

BANNER-STONES.

=Fountain, G. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 186. 1898.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, pp. 201 ff. 1898.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 26. Distribution.
1897.

=Robinson, C. H.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1908, p. 134. 1908.

BASALT.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 169. 1892.

BASKETRY.

=Swan, J. G.= Smithsonian Contributions, XVI, p. 45. Cape Flattery.
1870.

=Montgomery, H.= American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1889, p. 343. North Dakota. 1889.

=Matthews, W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, p. 202. Navajo. 1894.

=Dixon, R. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, n. s., pp. 266 ff.
1900.

=Farrand, L.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, pp.
391 ff. Salishan. 1900.

=Holmes, W. H.= Anthropological Studies in California, pp. 155 ff.
1900.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 22, pt. 1, p. 98.
Pueblo. 1900–01.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., pp. 109 ff.
1901.

=Stevenson, M. C.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 23, p. 373.
Zuñi. 1901–02.

=Pepper, G. H.= Journal of American Museum of Natural History, vol.
II, no. 4, Suppl. p. 22. Utah. 1902.

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1902, pp.
171–548. A general paper. 1902.

=Emmons, G. T.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. III, Anthropology II, pp. 229. 1903.

=Goddard, P. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 1,
no. 1, p. 38. Hupa. 1903–04.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 2,
no. 4, pp. 106 ff. 1904–07.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, Pt. 3, pp. 145 ff. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pp. 644 ff. Dakota.
1906.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, pp. 168 ff. 1907.

=Speck, F. D.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 109. Creek. 1907.

Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, pt. 2, p.
160. Osage.

=Hough, W.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 35, p. 24.
South-Western Culture. 1907.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, p. 353. 1908.

=Harrington, M. R.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 410. Lenape.
1908.

=Barrett, S. A.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 7,
no. 3, pp. 136 ff. Pomo. 1908.

=Kissell, M. L.= Science, Dec. 24, 1909, p. 933. Classification. 1909.

=Speck, F. G.= Anthropological Publications, University of
Pennsylvania, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 31. Yuchi. 1909.

BEADS.

=Henshaw, H. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. III, p. 104. 1890.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, p. 61. 1892.

=Hoffman, W. J.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 14, p. 267.
1892–93.

=Smith, H. I.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 52. Michigan. 1893.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 108. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Richmond, J. F.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, 1907,
p. 448. Florida. 1907.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
VIII, 2, p. 63. Cahuilla Indians. 1908.

BIRD-STONES.

=Moorehead, W. K.= The Birdstone Ceremonial. A general discussion.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 8, i, pp. 5 ff. Wisconsin.
1909.

BLANKETS.

=Pepper, G. H.= The Making of a Navajo Blanket. New York. 1902.

BOBBINS.

=Berlin, A. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 172. 1897.

BODKINS.

=McGuire, J. G.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1894,
pp. 623 ff. Primitive Drilling. 1894.

BONE AND BONE IMPLEMENTS.

=Rau, C.= Prehistoric Fishing, pp. 7, 13, 46, 120, etc. 1884.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Fort Ancient, p. 43. 1890.

=Howe, G. L.= The Archæologist, vol. II, p. 254. California. 1894.

=Mason, O. T.= International Congress of Anthropology. Chicago, p. 73,
1894.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, II,
Anthropology, I, no. III, p. 134. 1899.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 22, I, p. 93.
Pueblo. 1900–01.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., p. 121.
Perforators. 1901.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, n. s., p. 120. Indian
Territory. 1902.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.
4, p. 171. (Anthropology, III, IV.) British Columbia. 1903.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 192. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Peabody, C., and Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin of Phillips Academy, I,
p. 18. Jacobs Cavern, Missouri. 1904.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, 2, p. 50.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Smith, H. I.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
1904, p. 197. Washington, State. 1904.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 140. California. 1905.

=Sinclair, W, J.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
2, I, p. 12. Potter Creek Cave. 1904–07.

=Wintemberg, W. J.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 271. Attiwandarons.
1905.

=Gesner, A. T.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 366. Mandans. 1905.

=Will, G. F., and Spinden, H. J.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol.
3, pt. 4, p. 172. Mandans. 1906.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol.
2, I, p. 103. Ohio. 1906.

=Merriam, J. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 224.
Caves of California. 1906.

=Putnam, F. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 229 ff.
Caves of California. 1906.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 648.
Dakota. 1906.

=Boas, F.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.
15, pt. 2, pp. 383 ff., and frequently. 1907.

=Barbour, E. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, pp. 44 ff. 1907.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 156. Nebraska Loess.
1907.

=Hough, W.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 35, p. 23. South
West. 1907.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, p. 68. Wisconsin Caches.
1907.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 189. Nez Percé. 1908.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin of the Phillips Academy, Andover, 4, p.
98. Fort Ancient. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 173. Northern Shoshone. 1909.

BOWLS.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 257 ff.
Pueblo. 1882–83.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 360 ff. Mississippi
Valley. 1882–83.

=Smyth, S. G.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 340. Pennsylvania. 1905.

=Will, G. F., and Spinden, H. J.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol.
3, 4, p. 116. Mandans. 1906.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin of the Phillips Academy, Andover, no. 3,
pp. 47 ff. Chaco. 1906.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., pp. 423
ff. Wooden Bowls of the Algonquins. 1908.

BOWS AND ARROWS. (See also under ARROWS.)

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1893, pp. 631
ff. General North American discussion. 1893.

=Frisbin, J. S.= The Archæologist, vol. I, p. 70. 1893.

=Knight, E. H.= A Study of Savage Weapons, p. 74.

=Goddard, P. E.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 1,
1, p. 32. Hupa. 1903–04.

=Mylius, E.= Archiv für Anthropologie, N. F. III, pp. 219 ff. The
Theory. 1905.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol.
2, pt. I, p. 79. Eskimo. 1906.

=Wissler, C.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History, vol. I, pt. 2, p. 50. The Medicine Bow. 1907.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 81.
Virginia. 1907.

=Sapir, E.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 272. Oregon. 1907.

=Harrington, M. R.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 414. 1908.

=Dixon, R. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 213. California.
1908.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. I, pt. 4, p. 150. 1908.

=Sparkman, P. S.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
8, 4, p. 205. Luiseño. 1908.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, p. 261. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 192. Shoshone. 1909.

BRACELETS.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 58. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 646. Dakota.
1906.

BUFFALO.

=Allen=, in Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Kentucky, I, pt. II.
1876.

=Chittenden.= Fur Trade. 1902.

=Hornaday=, in Report of the National Museum, 1887, 1889.

=Alvar Nunez Cabeça de Vaca=, Relation of. B. Smith, translator. 1871.

=Winship.= Coronado Expedition, 14th Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology. 1896.

BUFFALO HAIR.

=Bushnell, D. I.=, Jr. American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p.
401. A general discussion. 1909.

BURIALS.

=Yarrow, H. C.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, I, pp. 89 ff. A
general discussion. 1879–80.

=Bahnson, K.= Aarb. f. Nord. Old. og Hist. 1882. Discussion on
America, pp. 125 ff. 1882.

=Montgomery, H.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1889, p. 343. 1889.

American Anthropologist, vol. 8, pp. 640, 641, 642. 1906.

Toronto Globe, August 3, 1878.

=Moore, C. B.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 28. 1902.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, 2, p. 24.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Moore, C. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., p. 660.
Urn-burial. 1904.

=Mills, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 348. Ohio. 1906.

=Pepper, G. H.= Ancient Basket Makers of South Western Utah, pp. 5–7.

=Gardner, W.= American Antiquarian, vol. 31, p. 78. Nebraska. 1909.

CACHES. (Also, see DISCS.)

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, p. 79.
Potomac-Chesapeake Province. 1893–94.

=Volk, E.= Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology,
Chicago, pp. 140 ff. New Jersey. 1894.

=Brown, C. E.= Records of the Past, 1905, pp. 82, ff. Wisconsin. 1905.

“The Implement Caches of the Wisconsin Indians.” Wisconsin
Archeologist, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 47 ff. 1907.

CALENDAR STONE.

=Blake, W. W.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 16. 1903.

CARRYING INDUSTRY.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, 1889, pp. 21 ff. 1889.

CARVINGS.

=Henshaw, H. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 123 ff.
1880–81.

CATLINITE.

=Brower.= “Kansas Explorations,” pp. 33 and 64.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, pp. 168 and 173.
1892.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 645.
Dakota. 1906.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, pp. 36 and 39.

Manitoba and Saskatchewan. 1908.

CELTS.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, p. 30. Chiriqui.
1884–85.

=Proudfit, S. V.= American Anthropologist, vol. 1, p. 337. Potomac
Region. 1888.

=Willoughby, C. C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, no. 6, p.
43. Maine. 1898.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, pp. 147–48. 1898.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Miscellaneous Collections of the Smithsonian
Institution, vol. 45, p. 106. Porto Rico. 1903.

American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., p. 595. Cuba. 1904.

=Squier, G. H.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1905, p. 33. Wisconsin. 1905.

=Richmond, J. F.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol.
16, p. 448. Florida. 1907.

CEREMONIALS.

=Welch, L. B., and Richardson, J. M.= American Antiquarian, vol. 4,
pp. 43 ff. Ohio. 1881.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 182. 1898.

=Ward, H. L.= Bulletin of the Wisconsin Society of Natural History,
Oct., 1906, p. 160. Michigan. 1906.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 1, pt. 4, p. 268. Gros Ventre. 1908.

=Nomenclature Report.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., pp.
114 ff. 1909.

CHARM-STONES.

=Yates, L. C.= Report of Smithsonian Institution 1886, pt. 1, pp. 296
ff. 1886.

CHISELS.

=Carr, L., and Shaler, N. S.= Prehistoric Remains of Kentucky, p. 18.
1876.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 86. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, pp. 68 ff. Ontario.
1897.

CHISELS.

=Smith, H. I.= Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.
4, p. 162. British Columbia. 1903.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 77. Virginia.
1907.

CHIPPED ARTIFACTS.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 359. British
Columbia. 1909.

CLAY.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 646. Dakota.
1906.

CLUBS.

=Knight, E. H.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1879, p. 214.
1879.

COMBS.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 57. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Archæologist, 1899, p. 16. 1899.

=Thalbitzer, W.= Meddelelser on Grönland, vol. XXVIII pp. 467 ff. East
Greenland. 1909.

CONES.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1909, pp. 139 ff. Wisconsin.
1909.

COPPER.

=Atwater, C.= Archæologia Americana, pp. 162, etc. 1820.

=Putnam, F. W.= Archæological Explorations in Tennessee, p. 307. 1878.

=Schmidt, E.= Archiv für Anthropologie, vol. II, pp. 65 ff. North
America. 1879.

=Butler, J. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 3, p. 33. 1880.

=Lewis, T. H.= American Antiquarian, vol. 11, p. 293. 1889.

=Montgomery, H.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1889, p. 344. 1889.

=Henshaw, H. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 103. 1890.

=Packard, R. L.= American Antiquarian, vol. 15, pp. 67 and 152. 1893.

=Thomas, C.= American Archæology, p. 109. 1898.

=Hamilton.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 158. 1898.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 21, p. 83. Ontario. 1899.

=Lathrop, J. H.= American Antiquarian, vol. 23, p. 248. 1901.

=Hamilton, H. P.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. I, 3, pp. 7 ff. 1901.

=Moore, C. B.= International Congress of Anthropology, Chicago, pp. 27
ff. 1902.

=MacLean, J. P.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol. 12,
p. 57. 1903.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol.
12, p. 317. 1903.

=McGuire, Moore, Putnam, Willoughby, Moorehead, etc.= American
Anthropologist, vol. 5, no. 1, n. s. A symposium. 1903.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 3, pp. 49 ff. Implements.
1904.

Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 3, pp. 101 ff. Ornaments. 1904.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 644. 1906.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 36. 1908.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 28, pp. 213 ff. 1906.

=Smith, H. I.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 6, pp. 20 ff. 1906–07.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, pp. 73 ff. 1907.

=Mead, C. W.= Peruvian Mummies, p. 15. 1907.

COPPER TABLETS.

=Thomas, C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 245. 1891.

=McGuire, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 175. 1892.

=Thruston, G. P.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, p. 96. 1892.

CRADLES.

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1887, pp.
161 ff. 1887.

CUP-STONES.

=Rau, C.= In Contributions to North American Ethnology, vol. 5, 1882.
(U. S. Geog. and Geol. Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.)

=Fountain, G. H.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 272. 1897.

=Laubach, C.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 185. 1898.

=Ivey, H. J.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 46. 1898.

=Stilwell, L. W.= American Archæologist, 1898 p. 51. 1898.

DISCS.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 267 ff.
1880–81.

=Snyder, J. F.= The Archæologist, 1893, p. 181. 1893.

=Moorehead.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 39. 1898.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Miscellaneous Collections of the Smithsonian
Institution, 45, p. 125. West Indies. 1904.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 210. 1905.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 305. Lower
Columbia Valley. 1906.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, pp. 53 ff. 1907.

=Hartman, C. V.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 447. Tennessee.
1907.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 8, no. 4. 1909.

EARTHENWARE.

=Lawson, P. V.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 1, pp. 96 ff. 1902.

=Gerend, A.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 4, pp. 4 ff. 1904.

=Gerend, A., and Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 4, pp. 19
ff. 1904.

EFFIGIES.

=Editorial Article.= American Antiquarian, vol. 10, p. 384. 1888.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 12, p. 211. 1890.

=Moorehead, W. K.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 209. 1898.

=Wardle, H. N.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 213.
Mexico. 1902.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Records of the Past, pp. 246 S. Southwest. 1902.

=Pepper, G. H.= Human Effigy Vases. Chaco. 1906.

=Ashmead, A. S.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 738. Peru. 1907.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, pp. 691 ff. 1907.

EOLITHIC PROBLEM.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, pp. 425 ff. 1905.

FIRE AND FIRE-PLACES.

=Catlin.= North American Indians, p. 82. 1841.

=Robinson, C. H.= “The First Fire-Place.”

=Richey, W. E.= Early Spanish Explorations and Indian Implements, p.
9.

=Hough, W.= American Anthropologist, 1890, pp. 359 ff. 1890.

=Mills, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 351. 1903.

=Sheldon, A. E.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 46. South
Dakota. 1905.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 390.
Southwestern Kivas. 1908.

FISH-HOOKS.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1904, p. 83. 1904.

FLINT AND CHERT.

=Mercer, H. C.= International Congress of Anthropology, p. 63. 1894.

=Wright, G. F.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Springfield, p. 296. 1895.

=Seever, W. J.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 141. Tennessee. 1897.

=Snyder, J. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 160. 1897.

=Barrett, A. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 252. New York. 1897.

=Brooks, J. M.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 39. Missouri. 1898.

=Hamilton, H. P.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 158. 1898.

=Barnard, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 307. Missouri. 1905.

=Gesner, A. T.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 364. Mandan. 1905.

=Fowke, G.= Bulletin of the Phillips Academy, Andover, no. 3,
Appendix. Flint Ridge, Ohio. 1906.

=Barnard, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 89. Missouri. 1906.

=Blackman, E. E.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 103. Nebraska. 1907.

FOOD.

=Carr, L.= Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, April,
1895. 1895.

FRAUDS.

=Jenks, A. E.= American Anthropologist, 1900, pp. 292 ff. 1900.

=Kelsey, F. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., pp. 48 ff.
Michigan. 1908.

FURNACES.

=Flower, F. A.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 184. Illinois and
Wisconsin. 1907.

GAMES.

=Culin, S.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 24. A general
discussion. 1902–03.

GORGETS.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 179 ff. Art
in Shell. 1880–81.

=Thomas, C.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, no. 4, p. 34. 1889.

=Myer, W. E.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 6. Tennessee. 1894.

=Starr, F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 57. Mexico. 1897.

=Thruston, G. P.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 96. Southern
States. 1897.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 182. 1898.

=Peabody, C., and Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin 2, Phillips Academy,
Andover. A general discussion. 1906.

GOUGES.

=Perkins, G. H.= International Congress of Anthropology, p. 89.
Champlain Valley. 1894.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Anthropologist, vol. 19, p. 68. Ontario.
1897.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 180. 1898.

=Willoughby, C. C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, no. 16, p.
23. Maine. 1898.

GRAVES.

=Thomas, C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, pp. 109 ff. Shawnees.
1891.

=Deans, J.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, pp. 41 ff. British
Columbia. 1892.

=Thruston, G. P.= The Archæologist, 1893, p. 146. Tennessee. 1893.

=Cleaveland.= The Archæologist, 1893, p. 189. Ohio River. 1893.

=Smith, H. I.= Records of the Past, 1904, pp. 243 ff. British
Columbia. 1904.

=Nickerson, W. B.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 52. Illinois. 1908.

GRINDING-STONES.

=Hough, W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 191. Arizona. 1897.

GROOVED AXES.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 1, p. 13. 1901.

=Collie, G. L.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 7, p. 125. 1908.

GYPSUM.

=Bandelier, A. F.= Report of the Archæological Institute of America,
5, p. 74. 1884.

HAMMER-STONES.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, pp. 301 ff. 1891.

=Jenney, W. P.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 317. 1891.

=Smith, W. G.= “Man the Primeval Savage,” p. 121. 1894.

=Mercer, H. C.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 276. 1894.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 318. 1894.

=Snyder, J. F.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 378. 1894.

=Remsburg, G. J.= The Archæologist, vol. 3, p. 175. 1895.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 87. 1898.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 382. Alaska and
Hawaii. 1898.

=Phillips, W. A.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, p. 362. Columbus. 1899.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 51, Field Museum. 1900.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., pp. 454 ff.
Palæolithic and Eolithic. 1905.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 299.
Columbia Valley. 1906.

=Notes.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, p. 344. 1907.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 125. 1907.

=Branch, C. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 318. West
Indies. 1907.

=Boas, F.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 15, 2,
p. 379. Eskimo. 1907.

HARPOONS.

=Hayes, S.= Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History,
Jan., 1895. Ohio.

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1900, pp.
189 ff. Distribution. 1900.

=Smith, H. I.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, pp. 115 ff. 1907.

=Boas, F.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 15, 2,
p. 397. Eskimo. 1907.

HEDDLE-FRAME.

=Mason, O. T.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1899, p.
488. 1899.

HEMATITE.

=Fowke, G.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 345. 1894.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol.
5, p. 236. 1897.

=Bushnell, D. I., Jr.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 154. Missouri.
1903.

HOES.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, Oct., 1902, pp. 15 ff. 1902.

=Moore, C. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 498. A
general discussion. 1903.

IDOLS.

=Atwater, C.= Archæologia Americana, p. 210. 1820.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, pp. 197 ff. A general
discussion. 1892.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 45, p.
120. West Indies. 1903.

American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., p. 589. Cuba. 1904.

IMPLEMENTS.

=Proudfit, S. V.= American Antiquarian, vol. 3, p. 277. Missouri
River. 1880.

=Wilson, C. B.= American Antiquarian, vol. 5, p. 181. Mexico. 1883.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 80. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Hrdlička, A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, p. 66. Yaqui. 1904.

=Bushnell, D. I., Jr.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., p. 295.
Ozark Region. 1904.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, pp. 434 ff.
Eolithic. 1905.

=Gilder, R. F.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 706. Nebraska.
1907.

INDUSTRIES.

=Powell, J. W.= American Anthropologist, 1899, p. 319. Technology.
1899.

IRON.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 503.
Missouri. 1903.

IRON AGE.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, June, 1896, p. 191. Its
Introduction into America. 1896.

JADE.

=Meyer, A. B.= American Anthropologist, vol. 1, p. 231. 1888.

=Gordon, etc.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 24.
Copan. 1896.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= Archæological Report, Ontario, p. 85. 1896–97.

=Brown, A. P.= Bulletin of the University of Pennsylvania, April,
1898, p. 140. 1898.

=Hill-Tout, C.= American Archæologist, p. 35. 1898.

=Smith, H. I.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 72. 1898.

=Hill-Tout, C.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 152. 1898.

=Brown, A. P.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 290. 1898.

JASPER.

=Mercer, H. C.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 1. 1893.

American Anthropologist, vol. 7, p. 80. 1894.

=Van Epps, P. M.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 29. 1894.

=Laubach, C.= American Archæologist, 1898, pp. 144, and 265. 1898.

JET.

=Pepper, G. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., pp. 191 ff.
1905.

KNIVES.

=Nissly, J. R.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 67. 1893.

=Smith, W. G.= “Man, the Primeval Savage,” p. 247. 1894.

=Willoughby, C. C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, 1898, p. 44. Maine.
1898.

American Naturalist, Jan., 1902. 1902.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 75, Field Museum, p. 59. Arapaho. 1903.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, no. 3, p. 132. Maidu. 1905.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 77.
Virginia. 1907.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, pp. 61 ff. 1907.

LABRETS.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 44. Eskimo.
1896–97.

LANCE-HEADS.

=Breton, A.= International Congress of Americanists, New York, p. 65.
1902.

LANSING SKELETON.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, n. s., p. 743. 1902.

=Williston, S. W.= International Congress of Americanists, New York,
p. 85. 1902.

=Upham, W.= Records of the Past, 1902, p. 273. 1902.

=Wright, G. F.= Records of the Past, 1903, p. 119. 1903.

=Winchell, N. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 151. 1907.

LEAF-SHAPED IMPLEMENTS.

=Read, M. C.= American Antiquarian, vol. 1, p. 98. 1878.

=Smith, H. I.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 52. Michigan. 1893.

MANO STONES.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
VIII, no. 2, p. 51. Cahuilla. 1908.

MANUAL CONCEPTS.

=Cushing, F. H.= American Anthropologist, 1892, pp. 289 ff. 1892.

MASKS.

=Dall, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, p. 73. 1881–82.

METATES.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1900, p.
179. California. 1900.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 138. Maidu. 1905.

=Du Bois, C. G.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 8,
no. 3, p. 185. Luiseño. 1908.

MICA.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, p. 105.
1893–94.

MINERALS.

=Rau, C.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1872–73. “Aboriginal
Trade.” Copper, Galena, Obsidian, Mica, Slate, Flint, Pipestone,
Shells, and Pearls.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, p. 35. Chiriqui.
1884–85.

=Blake, W. W.= American Antiquarian, 1887, pp. 164 ff. Aztecs. 1887.

=Tassin, W.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1897, 1, pp.
649–688 and 749–810. 1897. Lead, Iron, Copper, Silver, Crystals,
etc. Agate, Cassiterite, Calcite, Chalcedony, Emery, Flint,
Fluorite, Hornblende, Jadeite, Jasper, Nephrite, Pyrite, Quartz,
Tin, Turquoise.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1907, pp. 66 ff. 1907.

MORTARS.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, 1899, p. 115. 1899.

=Bourke, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 61. South West.
1890.

=Brunner, H. L.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 385. Texas. 1891.

=Perkins, C. H.= International Congress of Anthropology, p. 90.
Champlain Valley. 1894.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 106. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Kemp, J. F.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 191. Oregon. 1906.

=Mills, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 346. Ohio. 1906.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 630. Porto Rico.
1908.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 8,
2, p. 51. Cahuilla. 1908.

MORTUARY STONES.

=Du Bois, C. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 484. California.
1907.

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.

=Hoffman, W. J.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 14, p. 77.
Menominee. 1892–93.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 20, p. 34. Eastern
United States. 1898–99.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 75, Field Museum, p. 42. Arapaho. 1903.

=Mead, C. W.= “Musical Instruments of the Incas.” Peru. 1903.

=Russell, F.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 26, p. 166. Pima.
1904–05.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 221. Maidu. 1905.

=Bushnell, G. I., Jr.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 676.
Virginia. 1906.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 18, 4. Arapaho. 1907.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 230. Nez Percé. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.
2, pt. 2, p. 219. Shoshone. 1909.

NECKLACES.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 18, no. 4, p. 440. Arapaho. 1907.

NEOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 2, p. 177. 1880.

=Cresson, H. T.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 163. 1894.

NET-SINKERS.

=West, G. A.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 7, pp. 131 ff. 1908.

OBSIDIAN.

=McGee, W. J.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, p. 301. Nevada. 1889.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 169. Manufacture.
1892.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 17, 2, p. 732.
1895–96.

=Brower, J. V.= “Missouri River,” p. 23. 1896.

=Meredith.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 320. 1898.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, n. s., p. 405.
Mexico. 1900.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, n. s., p. 417.
Aztec. 1900.

=Lawson, P. V.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 2, pp. 95 ff. 1903.

=Rust, H. N., and Kroeber, A. L.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n.
s., pp. 688 ff. 1905.

ORNAMENTS.

=Putnam, F. W.= Report of the Peabody Museum, vol. II, p. 310. 1878.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 1, p. 380. 1887.

=Henshaw, H. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 103. 1890.

=Thompson, E. H.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. I, p. 18.
Yucatan. 1897.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 22, p. 87. Pueblo.
1900–01.

=Seler, E.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 28, p. 59. Mexican
Feather Work. 1904.

=Willoughby, C. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 506.
New England. 1905.

American Anthropologist, vol. 9, pp. 70 ff. 1907.

PEARLS.

=Carr, L.= Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1897, p.
65. 1897.

PENDANTS.

=Thompson, E. H.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, 2, p. 19.
Yucatan. 1897.

=Willoughby, C. C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, 6, p. 24.
Maine. 1898.

PERFORATED STONES.

=Henshaw, H. W.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 5 ff.
California. 1887.

=Fison, L.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, p. 177. New Britain.
1889.

PERFORATORS.

=McGuire, J. D.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1894,
pp. 623 ff. A general discussion. 1894.

=Mason, O. T.= International Congress of Anthropology, p. 73. 1894.

=Sherman, G. M.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 45. 1898.

=Bushnell, D. I., Jr.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p.
540. Virginia. 1908.

=West, G. A.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 8, 2, pp. 37 ff. 1909.

PESTLES.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 1, n. s., p. 363. 1899.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 124. Middle
Atlantic Shell-Heaps. 1907.

=Bushnell, D. I., Jr.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p.
544. 1908.

=Sinclair, W. J.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
7, 2, p. 113. 1908.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 8,
2, p. 51. Cahuilla. 1908.

PICTOGRAPHS.

=Brown, E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 2, p. 257. 1880.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 6, p. 119. 1884.

=Barber, E. A.= American Antiquarian, vol. 6, p. 386. 1884.

=Hoffman, E. A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 1, p. 209. Ojibwa.
1888.

=Mallery, G.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 10, pp. 31 ff. A
general discussion. 1888–89.

=Emerson, E. R.= American Antiquarian, vol. 11, p. 381. 1889.

=Rawson, A. L.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, p. 221. 1892.

=Gunckel, L.= American Antiquarian, vol. 15, p. 223. Southwest. 1893.

=Montgomery, H.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 335. Utah. 1894.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 17, 2, p. 545.
Arizona. 1895–96.

American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 441. Porto Rico. 1903–04.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, pp. 148 ff. Porto Rico.
1903–04.

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 45, p. 132. West Indies.
1904.

=Smith, H. I.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 125. Colorado Valley.
1905.

=Bierbower, Mrs. S.= Records of the Past, 1905, p. 231. New Mexico.
1905.

=Pittier de Fabriga, H.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. 1, 5, p. 307. Colombia. 1905–07.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin 3, Phillips Academy, Andover, p. 159. A
Pictograph on Birch Bark.

=Hewett, E. L.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 32, p. 11.
Southwest. 1906.

=Sherwood, C. C.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol.
17, p. 307. 1908.

=Emmons, G. V.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 221.
Alaska, 1908.

PITTED STONES.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 124. 1907.

PIPES.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= American Antiquarian, vol. 4, p. 326. 1882.

=Douglass, A. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 11, p. 348. 1889.

=Thomas, C.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, p. 39. 1889.

=Henshaw, H. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 103. Georgia.
1890.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 13, p. 267. 1891.

=McGuire, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, p. 170. 1892.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 14, p. 69. 1892.

=McWhorter, L. V.= The Archæologist, 1893, p. 56. West Virginia. 1893.

=Clark, C. W.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 84. Mississippi. 1894.

=Berlin, A. F.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 278. A general
discussion. 1894.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 349. 1894.

=Perkins, C. H.= International Congress of Anthropologists, p. 88.
Champlain Valley. 1894.

=Fewkes, J. W., Stephen, A. M., and Owen, J. G.= Journal of American
Ethnology and Archæology, vol. 4, p. 31. Southwest. 1894.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 17, 2, p. 733.
Southwest. 1895–96.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 138. Ontario. 1897.

=McGuire, J. D.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1897, 1,
pp. 351 ff. A general discussion. 1897.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 20, pp. 45 and 173.
Eastern United States. 1898–99.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Archæologist, 1899, p. 16. 1899.

=Cadle, C.= Records of the Past, 1902, p. 218. 1902.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 75, Field Museum, p. 43. Arapaho. 1903.

=Goddard, P. E.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 1,
1, p. 37. Hupa. 1903–04.

=West, G. A.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 4, nos. 3 and 4. Wisconsin.
1905.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 138. 1905.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications, 103, Field Museum, p. 76. Cheyenne.
1905.

=Berlin, A. F.= Proceedings of the Wyoming Historical and Geological
Societies, p. 108. A general discussion. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 646.
Dakota. 1906.

The Archæologist, vol. 2, pp. 228 to 232. 1894.

=Ward, H. L.= Bulletin of the Wisconsin Natural History Society,
April, 1906, p. 9. Wisconsin. 1906.

=Herrmann, R.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 237. 1906.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, 3, p. 188. Nez Percé. 1908.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 346. Kentucky.
1908.

PLUMMETS.

=Snyder, J. F., and Muhlig, F. M.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 101.
1897.

=Willoughby, C. C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, 1898, p. 29. Maine.
1898.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 181.

=Peabody, C.= Bulletin of the University of Pennsylvania, May, 1901,
pp. 125 ff. A general discussion. 1901.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, 1909, pp. 139 ff. 1909.

POTTERY.

=Putnam, F. W.= Archæological Explorations in Tennessee, p. 318. 1878.

=Barbour, E. A.= American Antiquarian, vol. 1, p. 61. 1878.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 257 ff.
Pueblo. 1882–83.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 361 ff. Mississippi
Valley. 1882–83.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, pp. 437 ff. Form and Ornament.
1882–83.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, pp. 53 ff. Chiriqui. 1884–85.

American Anthropologist, vol. 2, pp. 246 ff. 1889.

=Henshaw, H. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, pp. 102 ff. Georgia.
1890.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, pp. 324 ff. 1890.

=Shrew, J. P.= American Antiquarian, vol. 13, p. 154. 1891.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, pp. 67 and 149 ff.
1892.

=Hales, H.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 219. Coiled Ware. 1893.

=Mooney, J.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, pp. 283 ff. Arizona.
1893.

=Pollard, J. G.= The Pamunkey Indians, p. 18. Virginia. 1894.

=Perkins, G. H.= International Congress of Anthropology, p. 87.
Champlain Valley. 1894.

=Cushing, F. H.= International Congress of Anthropology, p. 217. 1894.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 17, 2, pp. 569 ff.
Arizona. 1895–96.

=Gordon, G. B., etc.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, no. 1, p.
26. Copan. 1896.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 201. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Thompson, E. H.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, 2, p. 13.
Loltun. 1897.

Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, 3, p. 11. Labna. 1897.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 138. Ontario. 1897.

=Starr, F.= Bulletin 2 of the University of Chicago, Department of
Anthropology, pp. 4 ff. Mexico. 1897.

=Mercer, H. C.= Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, vol.
6, p. 111. Maine. 1897.

=Willoughby, C. C.= Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1897, pp. 9 ff.
Decoration. 1897.

=Gellenbaugh, F. S.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 48. Death
Masks. 1897.

=Cushing, F. H.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 8. Florida. 1897.

=Gordon, G. B.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 1, nos. 4–5. Uloa
Valley. 1898.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 57. 1898.

=Smith, H. I.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 72. 1898.

=Poole, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 42. 1898.

=McGee, W. J.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 88. 1898.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, p. 165. Arizona.
1898.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 20, pp. 1 ff. Eastern
United States. 1898–99.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 22, pp. 56 ff.
Little Colorado Valley. 1900–01.

=Stevenson, M. C.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 23, p. 373.
Zuñi. 1901–02.

=Pepper, G. H.= American Museum Guide Leaflet, 6, p. 9. Utah. 1902.

=Moore, C. B.= International Congress of Americanists, p. 31. “Killed
Pottery.” 1902.

=Lawson, P. V.= American Antiquarian, 1902, pp. 157 ff. Wisconsin.
1902.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, pp. 179 ff.
Porto Rico. 1903–04.

=Thompson, E. H.= Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, 1, p. 6.
Yucatan. 1904.

=Reid, W. M.= Records of the Past, 1904, p. 184. Mohawk Valley. 1904.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, 2, pls. XII ff.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Hodge, F. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., p. 581. Hopi.
1904.

=Note.= Records of the Past, 1904, p. 62. 1904.

=Gerend, A.= Wisconsin Archeologist, October, 1904, p. 3. 1904.

=Russell, F.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 26, pp. 126 ff. Pima.
1904–05.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., p. 211.
Southwest. 1905.

=Hrdlička, A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, p. 487. Apache. 1905.

=Wren, C.= Proceedings and Collections of the Wyoming Historical and
Geological Society, pp. 137 ff. Wyoming Valley. 1905.

=Gordon, G. B.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol.
2, pt. 1, p. 83. Eskimo. 1906.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 642.
Dakota. 1906.

=Will, D. F., and Spinden, H. J.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, 3, 4,
p. 175. Mandan. 1906.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 28, p. 277. A general
discussion. 1906.

=Flower, F. A.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 102. Lake Superior.
1906.

=Herrmann, R.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 237. Mississippi Valley.
1906.

=Mills, W. C.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 346. Ohio. 1906.

=Herrmann, R.= Records of the Past, 1906, p. 366. Pueblo. 1906.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 174.
Staten Island. 1907.

=Speck, F. G.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 2,
2, p. 109. Creek. 1907.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 126. 1907.

=Hartman, C. V.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 307. Costa
Rica. 1907.

=Branch, C. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 325. West
Indies. 1907.

=Gilder, R. F.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., p. 710.
Nebraska. 1907.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= Yale Alumni Weekly, June 19, p. 5. 1907.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 30, p. 49. Wyoming. 1908.

=Sparkman, P. S.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
8, 4, p. 201. Luiseño. 1908.

=Harrington, M. R.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, pp. 399 ff.
South Carolina. 1908.

=Gesner, A.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 243. Minnesota. 1908.

=Straley, M. W.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 263. Nebraska. 1908.

=Kroeber, A. L.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 8,
2, p. 54. Cahuilla. 1908.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 34. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum, vol. 2,
pt. 2, p. 177. Shoshone. 1909.

=Gilder, R. F.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p. 71. 1909.

=Speck, F. G.= Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 1,
no. 1, pl. III. Yuchi. 1909.

PRIMITIVE CULTURES.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Putnam Anniversary vol., pp. 137 ff. Ohio. 1909.

PRIMITIVE MAN.

=Dall.= Contributions to North American Ethnology, 1. 1877.

=Shaler.= Report of the Peabody Museum, vol. ii, no. 1. 1877.

=Foster.= Prehistoric Races. 1878.

=Putnam.= Reports of the Peabody Museum. 1876 ff.

=Whitney.= Auriferous Gravels. 1879.

=Putnam.= Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, XXI.
1881–83.

=Bancroft.= Native Races, IV. 1882.

=Morse.= Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, XXXIII. 1884.

=Nadaillac.= Prehistoric America. 1884.

=Putnam.= Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, XXIII.
1885–88.

=Skertchley.= Journal of the Anthropological Institute, XVII. 1888.

=Wilson.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1888. 1888.

=Wright, G. F.= Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History,
XXIII. 1888.

=Abbott.= Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, XXIII.
1888.

Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, XXXVII. 1888.

=McGee.= Popular Science Monthly, Nov., 1888.

American Anthropologist, vol. 2. 1889.

=Gilbert.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2. 1889.

=Haynes.= In Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, vol.
1. 1889.

=Wright, G. F.= Ice Age in North America. 1889.

=Powell.= The Forum. 1890.

=Thomas.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 12. 1890–91.

=Becker.= Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, II. 1891.

=McGee.= American Antiquarian, vol. 13. 1891.

American Anthropologist, vol. 5. 1892.

=Holmes.= Science, November 25, 1892.

=Wright, G. F.= Man and the Glacial Period. 1892.

=Claypole.= Popular Science Monthly for April, 1893.

=Wright, G. F.= Popular Science Monthly for May, 1893.

=Holmes.= Journal of Geology, 1, nos. 1 and 2. 1893.

Science, January 25, 1893.

=McGee.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6. 1893.

=Mercer.= American Naturalist, XXVII. 1893.

=Claypole.= American Geologist, XVIII. 1896.

=Kümmel.= Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, XLVI. 1897.

=Mercer.= Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, XLVI. 1897.

Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, VI. 1897.

=Putnam.= Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, VI. 1897.

=Salisbury.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, VI. 1897.

Science, December 31, 1897.

=Wilson.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1897, 1.

=Auringer.= American Archæologist for February, 1898.

=Thomas.= American Archæology. 1898.

=Blake.= Journal of Geology, VII, 7. 1899.

=Dall.= Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
1899.

=Holmes.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1899.

American Anthropologist. 1899.

=Putnam.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1899.

Report of the American Museum of Natural History, 1900.

=Holmes.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1901.

=Brower.= Memoirs, V. 1902.

=Chamberlin and Brower.= Journal of Geology, vol. X. 1902.

=Fowke.= Archæological History of Ohio. 1902.

=Holmes.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1902.

=Hrdlička.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, XVI.
1902.

=Upham.= Science for August 29, 1902.

=Williston.= Science for August 1, 1902.

=Winchell.= American Geologist for September, 1902.

=Holmes.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1903.

=Hrdlička.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s. 1903.

=Peterson.= Records of the Past, vol. 2. 1903.

=Winchell.= Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XIV. 1903.

=Sinclair.= Publications of the University of California, 11, 1. 1904.

=Munro.= Archæological and False Antiquities. 1905.

=Wright, D. F.= Records of the Past, vol. 4. 1905.

=Abbott.= Archæologia Nova Cæsarea. 1907, etc.

=Hrdlička.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 33. 1907.

=Winchell.= Records of the Past, vol. 6. 1907.

=Owen.= Records of the Past, vol. 8. 1909.

=Volk.= Peabody Museum Papers, vol. 5. 1910.

QUARRIES.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, p. 33. District
of Columbia. 1893–94.

=Dorsey, G. A.= Publications of the Field Columbian Museum.
Anthropological ser. 51. Wyoming. 1900.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin 3 of the Phillips Academy of Andover, p.
126. Tennessee. 1906.

=Fowke, G.= Bulletin 3 of the Phillips Academy of Andover, Appendix.
Ohio. 1906.

QUARTZ.

=Babbitt, F. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 3, pp. 18 ff. Minnesota.
1880.

Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, p. 333. Little Falls. 1890.

=Bushnell, D. I., Jr.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p.
547. Virginia. 1908.

QUARTZITE.

=Brown, C. E.= Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Arts, Science,
and Letters, vol. XV, part 11.

RATTLES.

=Starr, F.= Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Science, 9, p.
181. 1901–03.

=Du Bois, C. G.= Publications of the University of California, vol. 8,
3, p. 185. Luiseño. 1908.

=Sparkman, P. G.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
8, 4, p. 210. Luiseño. 1908.

=Wren, C.= Proceedings and Collections of the Wyoming Historical and
Geological Society, vol. 10, pp. 195 ff. Pennsylvania, 1908.

ROPE.

=McGee, W J= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 114. Mexico. 1897.

SANDALS.

=Snyder, J. F.= American Archæologist, 1899, pp. 5 ff. 1899.

=Pepper, G. H.= Journal of the American Museum of Natural History,
1902, p. 11. Utah. (Guide Leaflet, 6.) 1902.

SCRAPERS.

=Turner, L. M.= American Anthropologist, vol. 1, p. 186. Naskopie.
1888.

=Perkins, G. H.= The Archæologist, 1, p. 59. 1893.

=Dilg, K.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 127. 1897.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, p. 90. 1898.

=Pepper, G. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, pp. 187 ff. (n. s.)
Pueblo Bonito. 1905.

=Gilder, R. F.= Records of the Past, 1909, p. 6. Wyoming. 1909.

SHELL.

=Putnam, F. W.= Explorations in Tennessee, p. 335. 1878.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 179, ff. Art
in Shell. 1880–81.

=Montgomery, H.= Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1889, p. 343. Dakota. 1889.

=Reynolds, E. R.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, p. 252. Potomac
Region. 1889.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 13, p. 264. A general
discussion. 1891.

=Thomas, C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 237. Shawnee. 1891.

=Snodgrass, J.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 115. Ohio. 1894.

=Chidsey, C. E.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 141. Pascagoula. 1894.

=Howe, G. L.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 254. California. 1894.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 359. Pacific.
1896.

American Antiquarian, vol. 18, p. 30. Prince Edward Island. 1896.

=Carr, L.= Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1897, p.
71. “Dress and Ornament.” 1897.

=Snyder, J. F.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 25. Washington (State).
1897.

=Fountain, G. H.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 48. New Jersey. 1897.

=Calver, W. L.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 87. New York City. 1897.

=Laidlaw, G. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 19, p. 68. Ontario. 1897.

=Wintemberg, W. J.= Archæological Report of Ontario, 1900, p. 39.
1900.

=Lawson, P. V.= Wisconsin Archeologist, October, 1902, p. 6. 1902.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 192. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Smith, H. I.= Records of the Past, 1904, pp. 79 ff. British Columbia.
1904.

Records of the Past, 1904, p. 220. Dakota. 1904.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, 3, p. 141. California. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., pp. 643 ff.
1906.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, n. s., pp. 113 ff.
Atlantic Tide-Water Province. 1907.

=Branch, C. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 322. (n. s.) West
Indies. 1907.

=Hough, W.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 35, p. 23. Southwest.
1907.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s. p. 38.
Manitoba. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural
History, vol. 2, 2, p. 173. Shoshone. 1909.

=Gilder, R. F.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p. 70.
Nebraska. 1909.

SHIELDS.

=Knight, E. H.= A Study of Savage Weapons, p. 66.

=Russell, F.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 26, p. 120. Pima.
1904–05.

SILVER.

=Kunz, G. F.= American Antiquarian, vol. 9, p. 219. Florida. 1887.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol.
7, p. 120. Ohio. 1898.

=Harrington, M. R.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 1, 6, pp. 351 ff. Iroquois. 1908.

American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 413, n. s. 1908.

SKELETAL REMAINS.

=Montgomery, H.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 231. Utah. 1894.

=Baker, F.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, pp. 357 ff. 1898.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 1, n. s., p. 623.
Calaveras. 1899.

=Chamberlin, T. C.= Journal of Geology, vol. 10, 7, pp. 745 ff.
Lansing. 1902.

=Hrdlička, A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 323.
Lansing. 1903.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, n. s., pp. 336 ff.
1904.

=Wilder, H. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, p. 298, n. s.
Massachusetts. 1905.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin 3 of Phillips Academy of Andover, p. 120.
Kentucky. 1906.

=Gates, H.= Records of the Past, 1, 1906, pp. 271 ff. Minnesota. 1906.

=Gilder, R. F.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 37. Nebraska. 1907.

=Barbour, E. H.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 40. Nebraska. 1907.

=Mead, C. W.= Peruvian Mummies, p. 20. 1907.

=Hrdlička. A.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 33, pp. 9 ff. A
general discussion. 1907.

=Sinclair, W. J.= Publications of the University of California, vol.
7, 2, p. 109. California. 1908.

=Wright, F. B.= Records of the Past, 1908, p. 167. 1908.

SPADES.

=Rau, C.= Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1863, p. 379.
“Agricultural Implements.” 1863.

=Fowke, G.= 13th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, “Stone
Art,” p. 133. 1891–92.

=Thruston, General Gates P.= “Antiquities of Tennessee,” p. 222. 1897.

SPEARS.

=Bourke, J. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, p. 56. A general
discussion. 1890.

=Holmes, W. J.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 143. Shawnees.
1891.

=Crawford, J.= The Archæologist, vol. 3, p. 220, Nicaragua. 1895.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, 1, p. 147.
Eskimo. 1896–97.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, 1902, p. 118. Indian
Territory. 1902.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, 3, p. 132. California. 1905.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 644. Dakota.
1906.

=Blackman, E.= Records of the Past, 1907, p. 78. Nebraska. 1907.

=Spinden, H. J.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 185. Nez Percé. 1908.

SPINDLE-WHORLS.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 6, p. 149.
Chiriqui. 1884–85.

Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 20, p. 33. Eastern United States.
1898–99.

=Fabriga, H. Pittier de.= Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, vol. 1, no. 5, p. 307. Colombia.

SPOONS.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 645.
Dakota. 1906.

=Speck, F. G.= Transactions of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 2,
pt. 2, p. 160. Osage. 1907.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 35.
Manitoba. 1908.

SPUDS.

=Brown, C. E.= Wisconsin Archeologist, vol. 2, 1, pp. 15 ff. 1902.

STEATITE.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, pp. 106 ff. A
general discussion. 1893–94.

=MacCurdy, G. G.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 68. 1903.

=Bushnell, G. I., Jr.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, 1908, p. 546.
Virginia. 1908.

=Skinner, A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 702. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 174. Shoshone. 1909.

STONE AND STONE IMPLEMENTS.

=Sylvester, J. E.= American Antiquarian, vol. 1, p. 73. Ohio. 1878.

=Read, M. C.= American Antiquarian, vol. 1, p. 139. Grave Creek. 1878.

=Stevenson, J.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, p. 320. Zuñi.
1880–81.

=Buckingham, H.= American Antiquarian, vol. 3, p. 135. Oregon. 1881.

=Rau, C.= American Naturalist, July, 1881, pp. 536 ff. 1881.

=Butler, J. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 4, p. 229. 1882.

=Bandelier, A. F.= Report of the Archæological Institute of America,
5, p. 74. 1884.

=Gratacap, L. P.= American Antiquarian, vol. 6, p. 244. Sacrificial
Stone of Mexico. 1884.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 9, p. 280. 1887.

=Thomas, C.= Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 8, p. 9. 1887.

Bulletin of the Bureau of Ethnology, 4, p. 22. Ohio. 1889.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, pp. 165 ff. A
general discussion. 1892.

=Holmes, W. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, pp. 1 ff. A general
discussion. 1893.

=Fowke, G.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol. 2, p.
514. 1893.

=Mercer, H. C.= American Naturalist, 1893, pp. 962 ff. 1893.

=Berlin, A. F.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 53. Indiana. 1893.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 15, pp. 3 ff.
Potomac-Chesapeake Province. 1893–94.

=Newton, W. S.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 192. 1894.

=Fowke, G.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 328. 1894.

=Holmes, W. H.= International Congress of Anthropology, pp. 120 ff.
1894.

=Fowke, G.= The Archæologist, vol. 3, p. 197. 1895.

=Crawford.= The Archæologist, vol. 3, p. 220. Nicaragua. 1895.

=Wilson, T.= The Archæologist, vol. 3, p. 179. 1895.

=Fowke, G.= The Archæologist, vol. 3, p. 300. 1895.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 17, 2, p. 729.
Arizona. 1895–96.

=McGuire, J. D.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 227. 1896.

=Thomas, C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 9, p. 405. 1896.

=Thomas, C.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 63. (Cf. preceding article.)

=Leeper, D. R.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 197. 1897.

=Laubach, C.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 126. Delaware River. 1897.

=Seever, W. J.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 141. Tennessee. 1897.

=Coover, A. B.= The Antiquarian, 1897, p. 304. Ohio. 1897.

=Starr, F.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 45. Mexico. 1897.

=Thomas, C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 376. Washington
(State). 1897.

=Powers, A. J.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 12. Georgia. 1898.

=Thruston, G. P.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 225. 1898.

=Thacker, W. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 189. San Juan
Archipelago. 1898.

=Ivey, H. J.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 289. 1898.

=Laubach, C.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 296. 1898.

=Williams, F. H.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 102. 1898.

=Eisen, D.= American Archæologist, 1898, p. 136. 1898.

=Phillips, W. A.= American Anthropologist, vol. 2, n. s., p. 37.
Illinois. 1900.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1900, p.
177. California. 1900.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 3, n. s., pp. 289, 501,
726. Michigan. 1901.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 4, p. 487, n. s. Hopi.
1902.

=Wren, C.= Proceedings of the Wyoming Historical and Geological
Society, 1902–03, pp. 93 ff. p. 17, Pennsylvania. 1902–03.

=Culin, S.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., p. 62. 1903.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, pp. 110 and
167. Porto Rico. 1902–03.

=Peabody, C.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 40.
Mississippi. 1904.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 6, p. 593, n. s. Cuba.
1904.

=Will, G. F., and Spinden, H. J.= Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol.
3, no. 4, p. 163. The Mandans. 1906.

=Smith, H. I.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 305. Lower
Columbia Valley. 1906.

=Rust, H. N.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, n. s., p. 686. 1906.

=Moorehead, W. K.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, p. 257. New
Mexico. 1908.

=Coover, A. B.= Ohio Archæological and Historical Quarterly, vol.
XVII, p. 38. Ohio. 1908.

=Fewkes, J. W.= American Anthropologist, vol. 10, n. s., p. 625. Porto
Rico. 1908.

=Lowie, R. H.= Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 173. Shoshone. 1909.

STONE GRAVES.

=Peet, S. D.= American Antiquarian, vol. 12, p. 329. 1890.

=Thruston, G. P.= The Archæologist, 1893, p. 146. Tennessee. 1893.

=Thompson, A. H.= American Antiquarian, vol. 23, p. 411. Tennessee.
1901.

STONE MONUMENTS.

=Simms, S. C.= American Anthropologist, vol. 5, n. s., pp. 107 and
374. 1903.

SWASTIKA.

=Wilson, T.= Report of the United States National Museum, pp. 757 ff.
A general discussion. 1894.

=Brower, C. de W.= Records of the Past, 1907, pp. 236 ff. 1907.

TABLETS.

=Rau, C.= Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. XXII, p. 331.
Palenque. 1879.

=Campbell, J.= American Antiquarian, vol. 4, p. 145. Davenport. 1882.

=Brinton, D. G.= The Archæologist, 1893, p. 201. Long Island. 1893.

=Montgomery, H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 8, p. 645. Dakota.
1906.

=Moorehead, W. K.= Bulletin 4 of the Phillips Academy, Andover, p.
135. “Guest.” 1908.

TATTOOING.

=Sinclair, A. T.= American Anthropologist, vol. 11, n. s., p. 362. A
general discussion. 1909.

TEXTILES.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 3, pp. 393 ff.
1881–82.

=Dixon, R. B.= Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
vol. 17, 3, p. 149. California. 1905.

THROWING-STICK.

=Nelson, E. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 18, p. 152. Eskimo.
1896–97.

=Note.= American Antiquarian, vol. 29, p. 119. 1907.

=Pepper, G. H.= “The Throwing-Stick of a Prehistoric People.”
(Southwest.)

TRAPS.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, 1900, pp. 657 ff. A general
discussion. 1900.

TUBES.

=Read, M. C.= American Antiquarian, vol. 2, p. 53. 1879.

TURQUOISE.

=Pepper, G. H.= American Anthropologist, vol. 7, n. s., pp. 194 ff.
Pueblo Bonito. 1905.

WAMPUM.

=Parkman, F.= The Jesuits in North America, p. xxxi.

=Holmes, W. H.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 2, pp. 235 ff.
1880–81.

=Adams, W. W.= The Archæologist, vol. 1, p. 83. 1893.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= The Archæologist, vol. 2, p. 94. 1894.

=Calver, W. L.= American Antiquarian, 1897, p. 89. New York. 1897.

=Beauchamp, W. M.= American Antiquarian, vol. 20, p. 1. 1898.

WAR-CLUBS.

=Wickersham, J.= American Antiquarian, vol. 17, p. 72. A general
discussion. 1895.

WEDGES.

=Gilder, R.= Records of the Past, 1909, p. 6. 1909.

WOOD.

=Hough, W.= Report of the United States National Museum, 1888, pp. 531
ff. 1888.

=Hale, J. P.= American Antiquarian, 1897, p. 122. West Virginia and
Kentucky. 1897.

=Fewkes, J. W.= Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 25, p. 194. Porto
Rico. 1903–04.

=Russell, F.= Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 26, p. 97. Pima. 1904–05.

ZOÖTECHNY.

=Mason, O. T.= American Anthropologist, 1899, p. 45. 1899.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WRITINGS OF WARREN K. MOOREHEAD

As nearly all of my own articles, reports, and books deal with
archæological subjects, I have thought best to include a bibliography of
these, placed separately, although a few are referred to in various
places in the preceding pages of the Bibliography.

American Antiquarian, The, 1887–1901. Numerous articles.

American Archæologist, 1897–1899. Columbus, Ohio. Numerous articles.

Archæologist, The, 1893–1895. Columbus, Ohio. Numerous articles.

Are the Hopewell Copper Objects Prehistoric? American Anthropologist,
January-March, 1903.

Bird Stone Ceremonial, The. 31 pp. 42 figures. Large pamphlet. Saranac
Lake, N. Y. 1899.

Bird Stone Ceremonial and Suggestion of Archæologic Nomenclature.
American Association for the Advancement of Science Report. 1900.

Cincinnati Society, Natural History. Various papers in Reports,
1888–1900.

Commercial vs. Scientific Collecting. Ohio Archæological and
Historical Quarterly, January, 1904.

Exhibit from M. C. Hopewell’s Farm, Description of the. Ross County,
Ohio. 20 pp. 9 full-page plates. Chicago, 1893.

Expedition to the Southwest. A score of illustrated articles in the
Illustrated American, 1892. New York.

Exploration of Jacobs Cavern, The. Bulletin 1, Department of
Archæology, Phillips Academy. 29 pp. 11 full-page plates; large
foldingmap. Norwood, Mass., January, 1904. Co-author with Dr. C.
Peabody.

Field Diary of an Archæological Collector, The. 71 large pp., 42
figures. American Inventor, Washington, D. C. March, 1903-April,
1904.

Field Work, Report of. 108 pp. 45 figs. Vol. V (1897) of the Ohio
State Archæological and Historical Society Report. Columbus, Ohio.

Field Work, Report of. 96 pp. 22 figures. Vol. VII (1898) of the Ohio
State Archæological and Historical Society Report. Columbus, Ohio.

First Report of the Curator of the Archæological Museum of the Ohio
State University. Also Preliminary Exploration of Ohio Caves. 17
pp.; a table. Columbus, 1895.

Fort Ancient. 129 pp. 37 full-page plates; large folding map.
Cincinnati, 1889. Robert Clarke Co.

Fort Ancient, Description of. 16 pp. 12 figures and large map. Vol. IV
(1896) of the Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society
Report. Columbus, Ohio.

Fort Ancient, the Great Prehistoric Earth Work of Warren County, Ohio.
166 pp. Pt. II, Bulletin IV, Department of Archæology, Phillips
Academy, Andover, Mass. 1908.

Ghost Dance, The. 6 illustrated articles appearing in the Illustrated
American. New York, January-March, 1891.

Gravel Kame Burials in Ohio. American Association for the Advancement
of Science Report. 1902.

Hopewell Group, The. About 60 pages. 70 figures. Continued from May,
1897, to February, 1898, in the American Archæologist. Columbus,
O.

Indian Tribes of Ohio, The. 109 pp. Vol. VII (1898) of the Ohio
Archæological and Historical Society Report. Columbus, Ohio.

Metzger Mound, The. 10 pp. 4 figures. Proceedings of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1894.

Modern and Prehistoric Village Sites in Ohio, compared. American
Association for the Advancement of Science Report. 1894.

Narrative of Explorations in Arizona, New Mexico, etc. Bulletin III,
Department of Archæology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. 200 pp.
82 figures. 1906.

New Science, A, at the World’s Columbian Exposition. North American
Review, 1903.

Ohio State Archæological and Historical Reports, The. Numerous
articles. 1894–1895.

Popular Science News. 1895–1900. New York. Numerous articles.

Prehistoric Implements. 621 figures. 431 pp. Saranac Lake, New York.
June, 1900.

Prehistoric Relics. 176 pp. 180 figures. Andover, Mass. 1904.

Primitive Man in Ohio. 246 pp. 54 figures. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. New
York, 1892.

Primitive Cultures in Ohio, A Study of. Putnam Anniversary Volume, p.
137. Washington, D. C., 1909.

Recent Archæological Discoveries in Ohio. Scientific American
Supplement, August, 1892.

Red Cloud, A Sketch of His Life. Boston Transcript, December 22, 1909.

Remarks upon the Sheet Copper Designs of the Hopewell Group, Ohio.
American Association for the Advancement of Science Report. 1893.

Report of the Committee on Archæological Nomenclature. American
Anthropologist, March, 1909.

Ruins at Aztec on the Rio La Plata, New Mexico. Explored 1892.
American Anthropologist, June, 1908.

Ruins of Southern Utah, The. American Association for the Advancement
of Science Report. 1892.

Science. 1890–1903. Numerous articles.

Singular Copper Implements and Ornaments from the Hopewell Group, Ross
County, Ohio. American Association for the Advancement of Science
Report. 1892.

So-called “Gorgets,” The. Bulletin II, Department of Archæology,
Phillips Academy. 100 pp. 18 plates. Andover, Mass., 1906.
Co-author with Dr. C. Peabody.

Unknown Forms of Stone Objects. Some 6 pp. 9 figures. Records of the
Past, September, 1904. Washington, D. C.

Wilson, The Late Dr. Thomas. American Association for the Advancement
of Science. Meeting at Pittsburg, Pa., 1902.

INDEX

Abbott, C. C., I, 34; II, 350.

Abbott, G. B., Corning, California, II, 103.

Acaxes, II, 348.

Adaptation, II, 354 ff.

Adzes, I, 254, 273 ff.;
conclusions, I, 322 ff.;
copper, II, 189.

Adze, triangular, I, 274.

Afton, Indian Territory (Oklahoma), I, 215.

Agricultural implements, chapter IX, 175 ff.

Agua Caliente, axes, I, 316.

Alaska, woman’s knife, II, 311.

Algonquian pottery, II, 278.

Algonquins, II, 330.

Allentown, Pennsylvania, I, 35;
knives, I, 86.

Altar mounds, containing finer specimens, II, 63;
hematites, II, 295.

American Museum of Natural History, New York, I, 427; II, 302.

Amulets in Eastern Canada, II, 332.

Analyses of specimens, II, 353.

Ancient vs. modern art, II, 355.

Anderson, Clifford, II, 250.

Animal effigies, II, 20.

Antiquity of pottery-making, II, 294.

Antler in Dakota, II, 340.

Antler-tips, as arrow-points, II, 134.

Apaches, II, 354.

Appalachian pottery, II, 278.

“Archæologia Nova Cæsarea,” II, 350.

Archæological map of Ohio, II, 348.

Arizona, chipped implements, I, 244;
rings, I, 442.

Arkansas, chipped implements, I, 238;
engraved disc, I, 452.

Armlets, II, 335.

Army and Medical Museum, Washington, D. C., I, 121.

Arnold, B. W., Albany, New York, II, 311.

Arrow-heads in eastern Canada, II, 331;
Canadian Plains, II, 334;
Utah, II, 338;
Dakota, II, 341.

Arrow-point, analyzed, I, 100.

Arrow-points embedded in bone, I, 108.

Arrow-points, manufacture, I, 58.

Arrow-points, “rotary,” I, 68.

Arrow-shaft reducers, II, 134.

Arrow-wounds, I, 112.

Art at its best before European contact, II, 67.

Art in flint-chipping, I, 135.

Artifacts, number available for study, I, 10.

Ash-pits as preservatives, II, 136.

Atlantic Coast, shells, II, 118, 120.

Atlatls, Utah, II, 336.

Awls of bone, II, 134;
in eastern Canada, II, 330.

Axes, I, 186 ff.;
cached, I, 221;
manufacture, I, 226 ff.;
conclusions, I, 322 ff.;
copper, II, 180.

Bainbridge, Ohio, large blade, I, 233.

Banded slate, material for problematical forms, I, 343.

Bangles of copper, II, 225.

“Banner” stones, I, 346;
of copper, II, 224;
in eastern Canada, II, 332.

Bar-amulets, I, 402.

Barbed axes, I, 312.

Bark, Dakota, II, 339.

Barnard, W. C., I, 43.

Barr, James A., I, 154.

Barrett, Professor S. A., pipes, II, 88;
Cayapa Indians, II, 363.

Basalt, II, 111.

Baskets, II, 235.

Batrachians, represented in pottery, II, 287.

Bay-bah-dwung-gay-aush (“Daydodge”), II, 356.

“Bayonet-backed spear-points,” of copper, II, 210.

Beads, I, 355, 453;
of shell, II, 118;
of bone, II, 134;
of copper, II, 224;
of glass, II, 227.

Beasley, B., Montgomery, Alabama, II, 121.

Beauchamp, Dr. Wm., I, 260, 380; II, 14.

Bell-shaped pestles, II, 102.

Benedict, F. M., II, 202.

Beveled points, of copper, II, 202.

Bicaves, I, 443 ff.; II, 350.

Bird, much in evidence in prehistoric sculpture, II, 80;
pottery, II, 287.

Bird-stones in eastern Canada, II, 332.

Bird-stones, II, 4 ff.;
unfinished, II, 8.

Black Hills, II, 362.

Bludgeon, of copper, II, 224.

Bluffs, worked into mortars, II, 102.

Boas, Professor Franz, II, 363.

Boat-shaped objects, I, 341, 402.

Bone, in general, II, 134 ff.;
as material for ornaments, I, 358.

Borers, in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Boulders, as mortars, II, 102.

Boulder ruin culture, II, 362.

Bows, classified, I, 105.

Bows and arrows, I, 100 ff.

Bowls from tree-knots, I, 288.

Boyle, Professor David, II, 17.

Bracelets, I, 356;
of shell, II, 132;
of horn, II, 154.

Bragg’s collection of pipes, II, 89.

Braiding, methods, II, 242.

Brewerton, New York, I, 270.

British Museum, II, 89.

Broken winged forms, I, 379.

Brower, J. V., II, 153.

Brown, C. E., Wisconsin, etc., I, 11, 180, 239, 306, 374, 386, 418; II,
115, 156, 161, 294, 304.

Buffalo, classification of uses, I, 207;
extermination, I, 208–209;
bones, II, 150.

Buffalo hides, preparation, I, 208.

Bull-roarers, I, 416.

Burial of problematical forms, I, 347.

Busycon shells, II, 122.

“Butterfly” stones, I, 341.

Cabeza de Vaca, I, 92.

Caches, flakes, etc., I, 57, 166;
leaf-shaped implements, I, 138;
flint objects, I, 216;
bowls, II, 112.

California, quarries, I, 35;
obsidian blades, I, 232;
rings, I, 442;
pestles, II, 103.

Calumet pipe, II, 41.

Canada, northeastern, celts, adzes, and gouges, I, 273;
harpoons, II, 137.

Canadian culture areas, II, 363.

Cannel-coal, gorget, I, 373.

Cannibals, II, 348.

Canoes, manufacture, I, 280.

Carolina, ear-bobs, I, 356;
shells, II, 122.

Carr, A. B., Etna Mills, II, 308.

Carr, Lucien, I, 350.

Carvings on pipes, II, 48.

Catlin, collection of Indian portraits, I, 52.

Catlinite, II, 41;
a comparatively recent mineral, II, 51.

Catlinite quarries, II, 42.

Caves, of Kentucky and the Ozarks, II, 235.

Cave-Dweller culture, II, 362.

Cayapa Indians, II, 363.

Celts, I, 186 ff.;
(ground), I, 252 ff.;
conclusions, I, 322 ff.;
of bone, II, 134.

Celts in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Cemeteries, Tennessee, I, 164.

Central America, metates, II, 116.

Central and western Pennsylvania culture-group, II, 359.

“Ceremonials,” I, 346.

Ceremonial pipes, II, 57.

“Ceremonial swords,” I, 162.

Chaco Group, II, 133.

Chamberlin, T. C., I, 34.

Champlain, Lake, I, 236.

Chandler, G. P., Knoxville, Tennessee, I, 455.

Charleston, S. C., Museum, I, 10.

“Charms,” I, 346.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, discoidals, I, 451.

Chesapeake region, chipped implements, I, 236.

Chipped implements, Sellars’s remarks, I, 48 ff.;
types: knives, chapter V, p. 80 ff.;
projectile points, chapter VI, p. 99 ff.;
chapter VII, p. 127 ff.;
unusual forms, chapter VIII, p. 154 ff.;
conclusions, I, 232 ff.

Chippewa Indians, II, 159, 167.

Chipping-tools of bone, II, 134.

Chisels, copper, II, 184.

Choice of materials, I, 294 ff.

Chunky stones, I, 444.

Cincinnati (Ohio), Art Museum, I, 334.

Classification, by Committee on Nomenclature, I, 23 ff.

Classification, need of, I, 9;
presented, 31 ff.;
of pottery, II, 278;
of hematites, II, 301.

Classification, plans for, I, 10 ff.

Claws, as ornaments, I, 356.

Cliff-Dwellers, axes, I, 312, 316;
mano-stones, II, 103.

Cliff-Dweller country, pottery, II, 257.

Cliff-Dweller culture, II, 362.

Cliff ruins in Utah, II, 336.

Cloth, as wrapping for copper objects, II, 234.

Coffin-shaped gorgets, I, 341.

Collie, Professor G. L., I, 289.

Columbia Valley, I, 233.

Columbia Valley culture area, II, 363.

Conclusions of “Stone Age,” II, 344 ff.

Conical projectile points of copper, II, 206.

Conventional design, II, 288.

Conventionalization, II, 288.

Copper, discovery of, II, 168;
distribution of, II, 174;
fabrication of, II, 172 ff.;
in general, II, 161 ff.;
manufacture of, aboriginal, II, 165;
in eastern Canada, II, 332;
in Plains of Canada, II, 335;
in Dakota, II, 342.

Copper-casting, not aboriginal, II, 173, 174.

Cord for attaching ear-rings, II, 227.

Cores (Flint Ridge, O.), Fig. 27, I, p. 33.

Corn (maize), II, 96.

“Corn-shellers,” II, 314.

Cornstalk, II, 345.

Coronado’s historian, II, 348.

Coshocton, Ohio, I, 35.

Crescents, I, 341, 402;
of copper, II, 228.

Crosby, H. A., I, 274.

Crosses, as decoration, I, 404;
on shell, II, 131.

Crow Indians, necklaces, I, 216.

Culture-groups, II, 357 ff.

Cumberland Valley (Tennessee and Kentucky), II, 123;
pottery, II, 256.

Cup-stones, II, 314 ff.

Cushing, F. H., I, II;
“gorgets as bases,” I, 412;
Piney Branch, I, 39;
copper, II, 173.

Cylinders of copper (beads), II, 225.

Dakota, culture area, II, 363.

Dakota Indians, II, 166, 167.

Deer, II, 150.

Degeneration, of forms, I, 32;
of ceremonial, II, 61.

Delaware River, I, 35;
axes, I, 323;
copper, II, 174.

Delaware Valley and region (culture-group), II, 359.

Denver Museum, Colorado, II, 235.

Digging-tools (see also _Agricultural implements_), of shell, II, 120.

Discs, I, 98;
cached, I, 216;
of copper, II, 180;
of clay, II, 264.

Discoidal stones, I, 443 ff.

Discus-thrower, figure in resemblance on shell gorget, II, 125.

Disease among aborigines, II, 346.

Diversity of cultures as an argument for antiquity, II, 353.

Division of labor, I, 54.

Domestic science, II, 137.

Dominion Museum, Toronto, Ontario, I, 334.

Dorsey, G. A., I, 6.

“Double-bitted” axes, I, 307.

Douglas, A. E., I, 402.

Dress of American Indians, I, 350.

Drift-copper, in Wisconsin and Michigan, II, 231.

Drills, as war-points, I, 122.

Eastern Canada, in stone age, H. Montgomery, II, 330.

Eastman, Dr. C. A., I, 249.

Eddyville, Kentucky, shell gorget, II, 125.

Etowah Group, Georgia, II, 26.

Evolution of ornaments, I, 332.

Extreme North, absence of pottery, II, 248.

Folk-lore, value of, I, 6.

Eagle, realistically treated, II, 288.

Ear-piercing, I, 353–354.

Ear-plugs, of copper, II, 227.

Earrings, of copper, II, 226.

Eastern Canada culture-group, II, 358.

Effigies, II, 1 ff.;
of shell, II, 132;
of bone, II, 134;
of clay, II, 264.

Effigy pestles, II, 114;
pipes, II, 57.

Egyptian pottery, II, 278.

Elk, II, 150.

Ellsworth, W. H., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, I, 240.

Eskimo harpoons, II, 137.

Eyed projectile points of copper, II, 202.

Feather objects in Utah, II, 337.

Fewkes, Dr. J. W., shell effigies, II, 133.

Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, I, 232, 334.

Field study, II, 365 ff.

Figured stamp, II, 286.

Finger-rings, I, 442;
of shell, II, 132;
of copper, II, 226.

Finishing-shops, I, 37–38.

Fishes represented in pottery, II, 287.

Fish-bladders as ornaments, I, 356.

Fish-hooks, II, 134;
of copper, II, 222.

Fishing by harpoons, II, 140.

Fish-nets, II, 141.

Five Nations, II, 330.

Flint celts, classified, I, 191;
rare at Flint Ridge, Ohio, I, 196.

Flint Ridge, Ohio, I, 35.

Florida, chipped implements, I, 239;
shells, II, 122;
copper, II, 174.

Fluted celts, I, 272.

Fluted stone axes, I, 316 ff.

Fort Ancient, Ohio, I, 373.

Fort Ancient culture, II, 250.

Fowke, G., I, 10;
on quarrying, I, 36;
on discoidal stones, I, 447;
on copper, II, 173.

Franck, H. W., II, 360.

Frankfort, Ohio, gorget, I, 373.

Game-bones, as “good medicine,” I, 439.

Georgia, chipped implements, I, 238;
copper, II, 174.

Gerend, A., II, 206.

Glacial man, I, 34.

Gorgets, I, 341 and _passim_;
in general, I, 362 ff.;
remade, I, 362, 374;
re-perforated, I, 367;
on skeletons, I, 372;
of shell, II, 122 ff.;
of copper, II, 180, 227;
in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Gouges, I, 254;
conclusions, I, 322 ff.;
copper, II, 188;
in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Gourds, II, 238.

Graves, occurrence of copper in, II, 233.

Great Plains, large proportion of scrapers on, I, 205.

Greece, pottery, II, 278.

Greenstone, I, 300.

Grooves, variety, I, 326.

Grooved stone axes, I, 287 ff.;
classified, I, 306–307, 312.

Ground stone, I, 251 ff.

Gruenberg, Professor B. C., II, 367.

Gulf of California, shells, II, 132.

Gulf States, pottery, II, 247.

Gums for fastening the hafting, I, 286.

Hafting, scrapers, I, 205;
celts, I, 284;
“spuds,” I, 430;
bone, II, 151.

Hair-dressing, I, 356.

Hairpins, I, 210.

Hamilton, H. P., I, 242; II, 161.

Hammers, Canadian Plains, II, 333;
Utah, II, 338;
Dakota, II, 341.

Hammer-stones, I, 36, 224 ff.;
types, I, 230.

“Handbook of American Indians,” compared with “The Stone Age,” I, 1;
problematical forms, I, 343.

Hand-hatchet, I, 197, 270.

Handles, fastened with sinews and gum, I, 286;
of bone, II, 134.

Harpoons, II, 134;
of copper, II, 214;
of bone in eastern Canada, II, 330.

Hatchets, I, 252.

Head-dresses, II, 134.

Hematite, where found, II, 295;
plummets, II, 295.

Hematite objects, cached, I, 221;
in general, II, 295 ff.

Herrmann, R., Dubuque, Iowa, II, 159.

Hiawatha traditions, II, 356.

Hodge, F. W., I, 11.

Hoes, of shell, II, 120.

Holmes, W. H., I, 10, 34, 289;
Potomac-Chesapeake Province, I, 38;
Afton, Indian Territory (Oklahoma), I, 215;
problematical forms, I, 346;
quarries, II, 104;
shell objects, II, 124;
pottery, II, 247.

Hopewell Group, cache of discs, I, 218;
value of beads, II, 122.

Horses, unknown to aborigines, II, 366.

Hostility of Indians to whites, II, 366.

Houmas, II, 350.

Hrdlička, Dr. A., II, 352.

Human effigies, II, 25.

Human features in flint, I, 162;
on pottery, II, 287.

Hupa Indians, II, 69.

Hurons, II, 330.

Ice, celts used for chopping, I, 270.

Illinois, chipped implements, I, 242;
copper, II, 174;
culture, II, 360.

Impressions of fabrics, II, 235.

Incised vs. plastic designs, II, 288.

Indians, compared with Australians and Africans, I, 331.

Indian Territory (Oklahoma), I, 86;
quarries, 135.

Insertion, inlaying, II, 155.

Invention of specialized tools, II, 286.

Iowa, chipped implements, I, 242;
bird-stones, II, 5;
copper, II, 174;
State Museum, II, 314.

Iron, use of, II, 344;
arrow-points of, used for trade, I, 52.

Iroquoian culture-group, II, 358–359.

Iroquois pottery, II, 248.

Irving, Professor J. D., II, 352.

“Jesuit Relations,” I, 4; II, 166.

Jesup North Pacific Expedition, I, 302.

Jewsharp pipe, II, 32;
origin, II, 52, 53.

Jones, Dr. J., I, 422.

Kansas pottery, II, 270.

Kansas-Iowa buffalo culture, II, 361.

Kelley Cavern, Arkansas, II, 106, 136.

Kentucky, types of chipped implements, I, 238;
copper, II, 174;
culture, II, 360.

Kern, D. N., I, 38.

Knives, of bone, in eastern Canada, II, 330;
chipped, _passim_;
see also, _Points_;
of copper, II, 196;
of stone in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Kroeber, Professor A. L., I, 246.

Kuehne, R., II, 196.

L-shaped stones, I, 402.

Labrador, material and its distribution, I, 249.

Labrets, I, 352.

Lacing of sandals, II, 245.

Ladles, of bone, II, 134.

Lagoon La Jara, California, II, 108.

Laminæ, I, 336.

Lansing man, II, 352.

Lapidary, aboriginal, I, 145.

Lawson, P. V., I, 240.

Leather, in Dakota, II, 339.

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, knives, I, 86.

Lenni-Lenape, II, 357.

Lewis, J. B., California, I, 436; II, 106.

Lewis, Professor T. H., II, 186.

Linguistic stocks, II, 357.

Little River, Tennessee, I, 35;
flint, I, 218.

Living forms, influence on American art, II, 3;
in pottery, II, 287.

Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin, I, 241, 308; II, 161.

Long, Major S. H., I, 50.

“Long-bitted” axes, I, 306.

Louisiana, chipped implements, I, 238.

Maces, I, 422.

Madisonville, Ohio, bone handles, I, 205;
pottery, II, 250.

Mah-een-gonce, Ojibwa, I, 216.

Malleating pottery, II, 280.

Mallery, G., II, 1.

Mammoth, II, 160.

Mandans, scrapers, I, 198;
necklaces, I, 216;
bone implements, II, 150.

Manitoba, II, 341.

Mano-stones, II, 103.

Marriage tokens (bird-stones), II, 16.

Martin’s Creek, Pennsylvania, problematical forms, I, 376.

Mason, O. T., industries, I, 16 ff.

Mats, II, 235.

Mauls, I, 260;
on Canadian Plains, II, 333.

McCoy, Solon, Mountain Home, Idaho, II, 102.

McGee, W J, I, 330;
Seris, II, 348.

McGuire, J. D. (pipes), I, 11; II, 29;
nephrite axe, I, 226 ff.

Medicine-man, “Badthing,” I, 94.

Meredith, Rev. H. C., I, 154, 437; II, 308.

Metates, II, 95 ff.
See also _Mortars_.

Mexico, metates, II, 115.

Michigan, II, 186, and _passim_.
See also under _Wisconsin_.

Michigan, barbed axes, I, 312.

Midiwewin Society, II, 356.

Migration, I, 249.

Mills, W. C., II, 79, 148.

Mill-stones, II, 106.

Milton College, II, 161.

Milwaukee Public Museum, I, 241, 308.

Minnesota, bird-stones, II, 5;
copper, II, 174.

Mississippi, chipped implements, I, 238;
pottery, II, 270.

Mississippi Valley, axes, I, 323;
importance of, II, 346.

Missouri, quarries, I, 35;
chipped implements, I, 242;
pottery, II, 256;
hematite, II, 295;
culture area, hematite belt, II, 360.

Missouri Historical Society, I, 232.

Mitchell, S. D., II, 161.

Mixed cultures, may be found together, II, 77.

Moccasin Bend, Tennessee, I, 232.

Monitor pipes, II, 33;
Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, II, 40.

Montgomery, Alabama, I, 430.

Montgomery, Henry, II, 242;
reducing stone, II, 313;
eastern Canada, Utah, and Dakota, II, 330 ff.

Moore, C. B., I, 328, 422, 430;
shells, II, 120;
pottery, II, 247.

Moose-antler; imitated in flint, I, 160.

Mortars, II, 95 ff.

Mortars and pestles, not always found together, II, 111.

Mounds, eastern Canada, II, 330.

Mounting. See _Hafting_.

“Mullers,” I, 434.

Musical instruments, II, 160.

Mutilation, for purposes of ornament, I, 352–353.

“Mystery,” Indian, I, 215.

“Mystery stones,” I, 249.

National Museum, Washington, D. C., II, 12.

Navajo blankets, II, 355.

Nebraska pottery, II, 270.

Necklaces, of bone, II, 142.

Needles, of bone, II, 157;
in eastern Canada, II, 330;
of copper, II, 221.

Nelson, C. A., II, 125.

Net-sinkers, I, 432.

New Brunswick, limit of bird-stones, II, 5.

New England, slate spear-heads, I, 234, 236;
celts, adzes, and gouges, I, 273;
winged forms, I, 386;
pestles, II, 102;
harpoons, II, 137;
copper, II, 178;
pottery, II, 248;
culture-group, II, 358.

New Hampshire, quartzite, etc., I, 234.

New Jersey, long slender chipped forms, I, 236.

New Mexico, quarries, I, 35;
chipped implements, I, 244.

New York State, harpoons, II, 137.

New York State Museum, I, 260.

Nomenclature committee, membership, I, 11.

Northern California culture, II, 362.

North Carolina, copper, II, 174.

Northwest Pacific Coast culture, II, 363.

Nose-piercing, I, 353–354.

Nose rings, I, 355.

Notched implements, I, 426.

Notched projectile points of copper, II, 202.

Notched rattles, II, 159.

Nut-cracking by Indians, II, 322.

Objects of bone, Canadian Plains, II, 334;
Utah, II, 337;
Dakota, II, 340;
of shell, in eastern Canada, II, 331;
Canadian Plains, II, 335;
Dakota, II, 340;
of wood, in Utah, II, 336.

Observation necessary to an archæologist, II, 351.

Obsidian blades, their value, I, 246.

Ohio, chipped implements, I, 238;
gorgets, I, 373;
copper, II, 174;
culture, II, 360.

Ohio River between Aurora and Lawrenceburg, Indiana, II, 345.

Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio, I,
334.

Ohio Valley, chisel celts, I, 324.

Ojibwa, I, 432; II, 40, 67, 356.

Ollas, for cooking, II, 264.

Ornaments, I, 329 ff.;
of bone, II, 134;
of copper, II, 230 ff.;
of silver, II, 230.

Osages, II, 354.

Oshkosh Library Collection, II, 196.

Ozark culture area, II, 361.

Ozark region, axes, I, 234.

Pacific Coast, knives, I, 96;
chipped implements, I, 244.

Paddles, II, 280.

Paducah, Kentucky, pebbles, I, 70, 126.

Painting, or tattoo-marks, II, 126.

Paint-pestles, I, 434.

Paint-stones, as mortars, II, 102.

Paint-stone hematite, II, 301.

Palæolithic forms with resemblances in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Palæolithic implements, I, 81.

Palenque, Mexico, II, 61.

Parker, W. Thornton, M. D., I, 122.

Patination, I, 178; II, 352.

Peabody, C., I, 11, 362, 431.

Peabody, R. S., II, 25.

Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts, I, 232, 334, 362.

Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, II, 104.

Peale, C. W., of the Philadelphia Museum, I, 50.

Pearls, I, 360.

Pebbles, drilled and used as ornaments, I, 329.

Pendants, I, 329 ff.;
of bone, II, 134;
of copper, II, 227.

Pennsylvania, large range of chipped implements, I, 238.

Pepper, G. H., shell effigies, II, 133.

Perforated clubs, II, 311.

Perforations, in problematical forms, I, 347;
in shell gorgets, II, 125.

Perforators (see also _Awls_, _Drills_), in general, I, 210 ff.;
classification, I, 210;
use as pins, I, 210;
of copper, II, 219.

Perishable materials, I, 32; II, 344.

Perkins, E. C., II, 210.

Perkins, Professor G. H., I, 236, 277.

Pestles, II, 95 ff.

Petaluma, California, plummets, I, 436.

Phallic pestles, II, 116.

Philadelphia Museum, II, 235.

Phillips Academy collection, Andover, Massachusetts, I, 362, and
_passim_.

Phœnix, Arizona, I, 138.

Pick-shaped forms, I, 341, 402.

Pictographs on gorget, I, 380;
in general, II, 1.

Pikes, of copper, II, 216.

Piney Branch (D. C.), I, 35.

Pipes, II, 29 ff.;
eastern Canada, II, 331;
Canadian Plains, II, 334;
Utah, II, 338;
Dakota, II, 341.

Pitted stones, II, 314 ff.

Plastic _vs._ incised designs, II, 288.

Plummet-shaped forms, I, 431 ff.

Pointed bowls for insertion in the ground, II, 114.

Point of view of the peoples of the stone age, II, 363.

Population in ancient times, II, 344.

Pottery, in general, II, 247;
invention, II, 258;
classified, II, 278;
in eastern Canada, II, 332;
Plains of Canada, II, 335;
Utah, 338;
Dakota, II, 342.

Powell, Major J. W., II, 357.

Precious minerals, II, 364.

Problematical forms, in general, I, 329 ff.;
peculiar to America, I, 414.

Processes of stone-shaping, I, 289.

Progression of types, I, 260.

Projectile points, copper, II, 180, 198.

Provincial Museum, Toronto, Ontario, II, 11.

Pueblo culture, II, 362.

Punches, of copper, II, 216.

Putnam, Professor F. W., II, 235.

Pyrula shells, II, 122.

Quadrupeds in or on pottery, II, 287.

Quarries, I, 34 ff.;
soapstone, II, 104.

Quarrying materials, I, 31 ff.

Question of antiquity of man in America, II, 350 ff.

Rat-tail files, discussion, II, 133.

Rattles, I, 357;
of clay, II, 261.

Rau, Dr. Charles, I, 421.

Reeder, J. T., II, 124.

Reamers, I, 212.

Re-chipped specimens, I, 124.

Rejects, I, 43, Fig. 36.

Re-made specimens, axes as hammers, I, 231;
problematical forms, I, 347.

Renaissance art, II, 355.

Repoussé work, copper, II, 234.

Rhode Island, pestle, II, 114.

Ribbons of (the moose), II, 159.

Ribs of animals, as knives, etc., II, 134.

Ridged gorgets, I, 341;
developing into bars, I, 403.

Rings, I, 440;
of clay, II, 264.

Rivet-holes in sockets, II, 210.

Rocky Mountain culture, II, 361–362.

Rocky Mountain region, chipped implements, I, 242.

Rolled socketed points, of copper, II, 212.

Roller pestles, II, 114.

Rubbing pottery, II, 280.

Rudeness of object no evidence of antiquity, I, 82.

Rust, H. N., I, 245.

“Saddle-stones,” II, 5.

St. Francis Basin, Arkansas, pottery, II, 256.

St. Lawrence Basin, celts, I, 267;
harpoons, II, 137.

Salado Valley, Arizona, II, 131, 132.

Salts Cave, Kentucky, II, 238.

Saltpeter, as preservative, II, 238.

Sandals, II, 235.

Santo Domingo, celts, I, 328.

Saskatchewan, II, 341.

Savage, Father James, I, 312.

Savage _vs._ barbaric cultures, II, 348.

Savannah River, pottery, II, 280.

Scarifying of pottery, II, 287.

Secondary uses of forms, I, 394 ff.

Scandinavian daggers, I, 62.

Sceptres, I, 166.

Schumacher, J. P., I, 242.

Schuette, G., II, 196.

Scrapers, compared with Eskimo, I, 67;
in general, I, 198 ff.;
classified, I, 198;
mounting, I, 205;
of bone, II, 134;
in eastern Canada, II, 330, 331.

Scraping pottery, II, 280.

Screw-pressure, I, 71.

Seever, W. J., I, 164.

Sellars, G., I, 40, 48.

Seminoles, II, 354.

Seris, I, 330; II, 348.

Serpent, realistically treated, II, 288.

Sharpening-stones, Dakota, II, 341.

Shawano sites, II, 345.

Shell, II, 117 ff.;
in Dakota, II, 340.

Shell gorgets, II, 122 ff.

Shoulder blades of animals, as digging-tools, II, 134.

Shuttles, I, 410.

Sinew, for hafting, I, 286.

Sinew-smoother, I, 369.

“Sinew stone,” II, 314.

Sioux, necklaces, I, 216;
pipes, II, 40.

Sites, prehistoric, historic, modern, II, 344, 345.

Skull, incrusted with shells, II, 352.

Slate spears, in eastern Canada, II, 331.

Smith, Captain John, I, 49.

Smith, Harlan I., I, 302.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C., chipped implements, I, 232,
334;
copper, II, 161;
pottery, II, 280;
hematites, II, 302.

Snake-form in necklaces, II, 155.

Snyder, Dr. J. F., Virginia, Illinois, I, 218, 427.

Sockets, copper, II, 190.

Socketed points, II, 180.

Soapstone, II, 104.

South America, copper, II, 165.

South Carolina, chipped implements, I, 239.

Southern California culture, II, 362.

Southern culture areas, II, 361.

Southwest, numerous effigies, II, 23.

Spades, manufacture, I, 64.

Spatulas, copper, II, 192.

Specialization in work, I, 145 ff.

Spikes, of copper, II, 220.

Spindle-whorls, II, 23.

Split stick for hafting, I, 305.

Spool-shaped forms, I, 403.

Spoons, of bone, II, 141.

Springfield, Illinois, I, 180.

Spuds, of copper, II, 186.

Spud-shaped forms, I, 418 ff.;
habitat, I, 421.

Squash, II, 238.

Squier and Davis, II, 133.

Stamping pottery, II, 280.

Stanley, H. M., II, 367.

Starr, Professor Frederick, II, 159.

Steatite, II, 104.

Steinbrueck, E. R., Mandan collection, I, 198; II, 150.

Stems, classified, I, 99.

Stockton, California, I, 154.

Stoddard, H. L., I, 452.

“Stone ceremonial swords,” II, 308.

Stone graves, Tennessee, II, 261;
number, II, 346.

“Stone swords,” I, 164.

Sun-dance, Mandan and Kiowa, I, 6, 7.

Sun-dried clay, liable to disappear, II, 269.

“Sun-fish spears,” Greene County, Ohio, I, 233.

Superior-Michigan region, chipped implements, I, 239.

Susquehanna River, I, 35;
axes, I, 323.

“Swords” of shell, II, 121.

Symbolic decoration, II, 287.

Symposium on copper, II, 233.

Tablets, I, 347 ff.;
of stone in Dakota, II, 341.

Tattoo-marks, or painting, II, 126.

Technology of flint implements, I, 234.

Tecumseh, II, 345.

Teeth as ornaments, II, 134.

“Telescopes,” I, 455.

Tempering, of pottery, II, 256.

Tennessee, types of chipped implements, I, 238;
bicaves, I, 446;
copper, II, 174.

Tennessee Historical Society, I, 232.

Tennessee Valley, shell gorgets, II, 123;
pottery, II, 256.

Texas, I, 40;
chipped implements, I, 244.

Texas culture area, II, 361.

Textile fabrics, in general, II, 235 ff.

Textiles in Utah, II, 337.

Thomas, Dr. Cyrus, II, 367.

Thruston, General G. P., I, 422.

Thunder-bird, as represented by winged forms, I, 380.

Tobacco and tobacco-smoking, II, 29.

Tomahawks, I, 270.

Tooker, Paul S., Westfield, New Jersey, I, 380.

Toothed points, of copper, II, 202.

Torches, of reed, II, 238.

Totems, II, 17.

Toys, of pottery, II, 261.

Trade, aboriginal, I, 221;
in copper, II, 23, 231.

Transportation of material, I, 40 ff; I, 218–220.

Trenton, New Jersey, II, 350.

Triangular pieces of horn, II, 153, 154.

Tubular forms, I, 453 ff.

Turtlebacks, II, 40, 191, 348.

Typha (cat-tail), fibres for braiding, II, 240.

Unbaked clay, Dakota, II, 342.

Unfinished fish-hooks, process of manufacture, II, 148.

Unfinished winged forms, I, 379.

Unio shells, II, 122.

University of Vermont, II, 189.

Utah, in general (Montgomery), II, 336 ff.;
culture area, II, 363.

Valuation of chipped implements, I, 245.

Variety in ceramics, II, 289.

Village-site of antiquity, II, 269.

Volk, E., II, 350.

Wabash River, limit of effigy pottery, II, 250.

Wagon-pressure, I, 71.

War points, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia,
Virginia, Massachusetts, Oregon, Illinois, I, 86, 88.

Wearing of perforations, I, 372.

Weathering, II, 353.

Wedges, copper, II, 184.

Weirs, II, 141.

West, G. A., pipes, II, 29.

West Virginia, plummets, I, 436;
copper, II, 174.

Whistles, II, 142.

Wild hemp, II, 242.

Willamette Valley, Oregon, small points, I, 233.

Williams, Professor E. H., Jr., I, 205, 413; II, 352.

Willoughby, C. C., I, 251.

Wilson, Rev. G. L., II, 153.

Wilson, Dr. T., I, 10, 34, 251.

Winged forms of greater age than the mounds, I, 411.

Winged problematical forms, I, 376 ff.

Winnebago Indians, II, 40; II, 159, 167.

Wintuns, I, 74.

Wisconsin, knives, I, 92;
spades, I, 184;
grooved hammers, I, 231;
celts, I, 272;
grooved axes, I, 306;
fluted axes, I, 316;
gorgets, I, 374;
winged forms, I, 386;
spuds, I, 427;
pestles, II, 115;
bone, II, 156;
copper, II, 161 ff.;
pottery, II, 294;
hematite, II, 304.

Wisconsin Archæological Society, II, 164.

Wisconsin Natural History Society, II, 161.

Wisconsin State Historical Museum, I, 241–242, 308; II, 161.

Woman’s knife, II, 311.

Women, compared with men in population, II, 137.

Wooden bowls, II, 102.

Workmanship, depending on material, I, 233.

Wrappings of cloth, II, 204.

Wright, Professor G. Frederick, I, 34.

Wright, Professor John H., I, 11.

Wyman, Dr. Jeffries, II, 352.

Wyoming, quarries, I, 35.

Yale, British Columbia, I, 304.

Yellowstone Park, I, 35.

Young, Colonel B. H., II, 124;
shell gorgets, II, 130;
Salts Cave, II, 238.

Zigzag ornamentation, or pattern, II, 214.

Zimmerman, E. D., Kutztown, Pennsylvania, II, 308.

-----

Footnote 1:

_Smithsonian Report for 1896_, p. 451, Dr. Thomas Wilson.

Footnote 2:

_Wisconsin Archeologist_, no. 1, vol. 8, 1908.

Footnote 3:

_Smithsonian Report for 1896_, p. 451.

Footnote 4:

_Polished Stone Articles used by the New York Aborigines_, p. 56.
Albany, 1897.

Footnote 5:

_Stone Art_, _Bureau of Ethnology Report for 1891–92_, p. 125.

Footnote 6:

Gilman, G., in _Smithsonian Report for 1873_, p. 371.

Footnote 7:

_Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, p. 30.

Footnote 8:

_Notes on Primitive Man in Ontario_, by David Boyle. Toronto, 1895, p.
67.

Footnote 9:

_Report_ of the United States National Museum, 1897, pages 361–645.

Footnote 10:

_Wisconsin Archeologist_, April-August, 1905, pages 40–171.

Footnote 11:

“The Aboriginal Pipes of Wisconsin,” _Wisconsin Archeologist_, vol.
IV, nos. 3 and 4, p. 83.

Footnote 12:

_North American Indian._

Footnote 13:

“The Aboriginal Pipes of Wisconsin,” _Wisconsin Archeologist_, vol.
IV, nos. 3 and 4, p. 130.

Footnote 14:

_Moundville Revisited_, pp. 384–390.

Footnote 15:

“The Aboriginal Pipes of Wisconsin,” _Wisconsin Archeologist_, vol.
IV, nos. 3 and 4, p. 125.

Footnote 16:

_Report_ of the United States National Museum, 1897, p. 445.

Footnote 17:

E. A. Barber, _The Antiquity of the Tobacco Pipe in Europe_, quoting
Rembert Dodoens on the virtues of colefoot in the “historie of
plantes,” _American Antiquarian_, II, p. 6.

Footnote 18:

_American Anthropologist_, October-December, 1906, p. 686.

Footnote 19:

“Antiquities of the Florida West Coast,” _Journal_ of the Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1900.

Footnote 20:

“Shell Ornaments from Kentucky and Mexico,” _Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections_ (quarterly issue), vol. XLV, p. 97. Published Dec. 9,
1903.

Footnote 21:

Holmes, in _Second Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology, pl. LXXIII.

Footnote 22:

_Notes on Primitive Man in Ontario._ Report of the Minister of
Education for Ontario. Toronto, 1895, pp. 73–81.

Footnote 23:

_Report_ for the year 1906, of the Ohio State Archæological and
Historical Society.

Footnote 24:

_Proceedings_ of the Davenport Academy of Science, vol. ix, pp.
181–183.

Footnote 25:

_Fourteenth Annual Report_, Bureau of American Ethnology.

Footnote 26:

_Archæological History of Ohio_, p. 712.

Footnote 27:

_Archæological History_, p. 713.

Footnote 28:

“Discussion as to Copper from the Mounds,” _American Anthropologist_,
vol. v, no. 1, January-March, 1903.

Footnote 29:

_Twentieth Annual Report_ of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1898–99.

Footnote 30:

“Explorations of the Wabash Cemetery,” _Bulletin_ no. 3, Phillips
Academy Publications, 1906.

Footnote 31:

“Polished Stone Articles used by the New York Aborigines,” _Bulletin_
of the New York State Museum, vol. IV. no. 18.

Footnote 32:

_Seventeenth Annual Report_ of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1895–96—The
Seri Indians.

Footnote 33:

“Father Gravier’s Voyage down and up the Mississippi,” pp. 143, 144.
Dated Feb. 16, 1701. From _Early Voyages up and down the Mississippi_.
Albany, Joel Nunsell, 1861.

Footnote 34:

_Archæologica Nova Cæsarea_, nos. 1, 2, and 3. C. C. Abbott, M. D.
Trenton, N. J.

Footnote 35:

Jeffries Wyman, _Fresh-Water Shell Mounds of the St. John’s River,
Florida_, pp. 33, 64. Peabody Academy of Science, Fourth Memoir.
Salem, Massachusetts, 1875.

Footnote 36:

_Prehistoric Implements_, sections 7 and 9.

=The Riverside Press=

CAMBRIDGE · MASSACHUSETTS

U · S · A

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

● 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 bold or blackletter font in =equals=.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA, VOL. II ***

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.