CHAPTER III_The stone age in North America, vol. 1 of 2

THE STONE AGE IN

NORTH AMERICA

[Illustration:

_Colored plate of fine chipped implements. Materials: jasper,

carnelian, agate, obsidian, and chalcedony. These were collected in

the Willamette Valley, Oregon, and are selected as indicative of

aboriginal American art in flint-chipping. B. W. Arnold’s

collection, Albany, New York._

]

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA

AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE IMPLEMENTS, ORNAMENTS, WEAPONS,

UTENSILS, ETC., OF THE PREHISTORIC TRIBES OF NORTH AMERICA, WITH MORE

THAN THREE HUNDRED FULL-PAGE PLATES AND FOUR HUNDRED FIGURES

ILLUSTRATING OVER FOUR THOUSAND DIFFERENT OBJECTS

WARREN K. MOOREHEAD, A.M.

CURATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY, PHILLIPS ACADEMY,

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF INDIAN COMMISSIONERS, ETC.

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. I

[Illustration: [Logo]]

BOSTON AND NEW YORK

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

=The Riverside Press Cambridge=

1910

_Published December 1910_

PREFACE

Before one enters fully upon a discussion of ancient man’s handiwork,

some introductory explanation is necessary. This work is the result of

twenty-five years’ study of primitive man’s prehistoric implements,

weapons, and utensils found in America. During the past ten years I have

presented several attempts at classification of these various objects,

two of them being in book form. But my publications were incomplete and

unsatisfactory, although in a sense they prepared the way for “THE STONE

AGE.”

A classification of stone, bone, shell, clay, and copper implements in

the United States is a difficult and tedious task in itself. There were

different cultures, some of which are known, others but slightly known,

and it is quite likely that, as time passes, implements will be

discovered in such numbers as to justify the establishing of new types.

Therefore my work cannot be complete, although I have endeavored to

include in it all type-specimens brought to my notice.

The work has necessitated an extensive correspondence with museums,

scientific men, and private collectors throughout the United States,

much travel, and the reading of thousands of pages of reports, books,

and articles.

It is probable that some of the statements will be challenged, and if in

any of the conclusions I am in error, I court correction. All these

observations are based on the study of actual specimens or photographs

of them, on field-work, on published material, and on museum specimens.

After deliberation I concluded to describe the implements, ornaments,

and utensils of North America according to class or type rather than by

locality. The several scholars who had aided me in this work and to whom

I am under the greatest of obligations are therefore given credit in

their several places. This was a better plan, and all of my observations

are so grouped.

I am especially indebted to Mr. Charles E. Brown, Secretary and Curator

of the Wisconsin Archæological Society and at present Dean of the State

Historical Museum at Madison, Wisconsin; and to Professor Henry

Montgomery, Ph.D., Head Curator of the New Museum of the University of

Toronto, Ontario. Both of these gentlemen are co-laborers in the

preparation of the pages which follow; both have offered suggestions and

been of great assistance; both made thorough studies in their respective

regions. Mr. Brown’s papers in the _Wisconsin Archeologist_ and other

reports, and his studies in museums in the Northwest, have made him an

authority on copper and other forms of ancient objects. Professor

Montgomery has carried on investigations, extending through many years,

of the archæology of the Dakotas, Utah, and eastern and central Canada.

Readers will observe that I have embodied Mr. Brown’s papers in various

portions of “The Stone Age” according to the types under discussion, but

Professor Montgomery’s several papers are presented as geographical

treatises in Volume II, just before my own Conclusions.

Much credit is due to both of these scholars for their permission to

make use of previously published papers, and for hearty coöperation.

I am under obligations to the Wisconsin Archæological Society for the

loan of plates illustrating specimens in its collection, and to Mr.

George A. West, the authority on Wisconsin pipes, for the loan of

figures illustrating pipes from the Northwest; and, further, to Mr. West

for his kindness in reading my chapter on pipes and offering

suggestions. The Directors of the Milwaukee Public Museum have my thanks

for their generous action in making, especially for “The Stone Age,” a

series of plates illustrating type-specimens in copper on exhibition in

their collection. Dr. S. A. Barrett, Curator of Anthropology in the

Milwaukee Public Museum, also rendered me assistance.

Dr. George L. Collie, Curator of the Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin,

kindly made for me a number of plates of interesting copper objects,

striated axes, and other artifacts in his museum. He also furnished me

with descriptions, and permitted me to republish portions of his paper

entitled “Aboriginal Discrimination in the Selection of Material for

Tools,” printed in volume VII, number 3, of the _Wisconsin

Archeologist_. These and other gentlemen have been very kind to me and I

appreciate their coöperation. That “The Stone Age” may be a success is

largely due to the interest taken in it by my numerous correspondents.

The student who wishes to consider all the forms in a given region will

find it necessary to refer to the Index. Because of my method of

treatment, I was compelled to ignore geographical lines. Otherwise

endless repetition would result. The only exception to be noted was made

in favor of Professor Montgomery’s paper.

I am especially indebted for assistance in the preparation of this work

to my colleague, Charles Peabody, Ph.D., Honorary Director of the

Department of American Archæology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., and

also connected with the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. Having

access to the great library of Harvard University, he kindly took in

charge the Bibliography covering necessary titles for the information of

readers and students. While the result does not embody every reference,

yet it is the most extensive list ever presented up to the present time.

Messrs. Montgomery, Barr, and Brown also added a number of titles. Dr.

Peabody’s interest in “The Stone Age” and his unselfish labors and his

many suggestions and advice were potent factors in making the work

possible.

I am also under particular obligations to about forty-five persons who

have been kind enough to assist in the making of illustrations for “The

Stone Age.” It is no more than fair to state that without this

coöperation it would have been impossible for us to present so many

figures and such excellent photogravure plates, and at the same time

offer the two volumes at the price named in the original circulars.

Colonel Bennett H. Young, of Louisville, Kentucky, has made for me about

fifty half-tones of type-specimens in bone, shell, clay, and stone which

he used in his work “Prehistoric Men of Kentucky,” and also in

“Discoveries in Kentucky Caves,” just published. Mr. F. P. Graves, of

Doe Run, Missouri, a friend of mine for more than twenty years, made

eight photogravure plates of the best specimens in his collection and

presented these for use in “The Stone Age.”

Mr. B. W. Arnold, of Albany, New York, sent me by express a portion of

his collection, comprising some of the most beautiful projectile points

and knives of semi-precious stone that it has ever been my privilege to

examine. In order to emphasize the high workmanship and beauty of these

points, Mr. Arnold had five colored plates made. Color reproductions and

photogravures do justice to the art of stone-age man. I am particularly

indebted to both Messrs. Graves and Arnold for their kindness in making

possible these fine plates.

Professor William C. Mills, Curator of the Ohio State Archæological

Society and State University Museum at Columbus, and Mr. Clarence B.

Moore of Philadelphia, loaned me plates illustrating specimens found

during their explorations.

Professor William H. Holmes and Dr. F. W. Hodge of the Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, permitted the free use of contributed articles

as well as figures published in the Smithsonian Reports and the

_American Anthropologist_. The generous and hearty coöperation of all

these individuals and institutions whose names are herewith appended is

no small personal satisfaction to me. In addition to the names

presented, there are more than three hundred persons who sent me

photographs, drawings, or lengthy descriptions of the types in their

several localities.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO “THE STONE AGE”

ADDIS, ALBERT L., Albion, Indiana.

ALBEE, C., Red Rock, Montana.

ARNOLD, B. W., Albany, N. Y.

BAGG, HARRY W., New Berlin, N. Y.

BAIRD, E. E., Poplar Bluff, Mo.

BARR, JAMES A., Stockton, Cal.

BARRETT, S. A., Milwaukee, Wis.

BEAUCHAMP, W., Syracuse, N. Y.

BRAUN, H. M., E. St. Louis, Ill.

BROWN, C. E., Madison, Wis.

Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, N. Y.

BURKETT, H. F., Findlay, Ohio.

CALDWELL, F. M., Venice, Ill.

COLLIE, G. L., Beloit, Wis.

DEISHER, H. K., Kutztown, Pa.

FRANCK, H. W., Sandwich, Ill.

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

HAMILTON, H. P., Two Rivers, Wis.

HAMPTON, GEORGE, Bridgeton, N. J.

HILLS, L. W., Ft. Wayne, Ind.

HODGE, F. W., Washington, D. C.

HOLMES, W. H., Washington, D. C.

HOLMES, W. A., Chicago, Ill.

HULL, GEORGE Y., St. Joseph, Mo.

Logan Museum, Beloit, Wis.

MILLS, W. C., Columbus, Ohio.

Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wis.

Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Mo.

MITCHELL, S. D., Ripon, Wis.

MONTGOMERY, PROFESSOR HENRY, Toronto, Can.

MOORE, C. B., Philadelphia, Pa.

New York State Museum, Albany, N. Y.

NORLAND, LUTHER A., La Jara, Colo.

Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

OWEN, DR. C. L., Chicago, Ill.

PEABODY, CHARLES, Cambridge, Mass.

PERKINS, G. H., Burlington, Vt.

Records of the Past, Washington, D. C.

REEDER, JOHN T., Houghton, Mich.

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

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

VAN RENSSELAER, STEPHEN, Newark, N. J.

WEBSTER, R. T., Rochester, N. Y.

WEST, G. A., Milwaukee, Wis.

WHELPLEY, H. M., St. Louis, Mo.

WILLIAMS, PROFESSOR E. H., JR., Woodstock, Vt.

WING, E. T. S., Portland, Maine.

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

CONTENTS

I. WHY A CLASSIFICATION BASED ON ARCHÆOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALONE

IS NEEDED 1

II. PLANS FOR AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION 10

Classification of prehistoric artifacts, made by the

Committee on Nomenclature 23

Articles in stone 23

Articles in clay 26

III. THE CLASSIFICATION 31

Quarrying materials 31

The beginnings of culture 33

Quarries 34

IV. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 48

How manufactured 48

V. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 80

Types without stems 80

VI. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 99

Projectile points with stems expanding from base or with

sides parallel 99

Arrows, bows, and quivers 103

VII. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 127

Stem contracting from base 127

A master at flint-chipping 135

VIII. UNUSUAL FORMS IN CHIPPED OBJECTS 154

IX. AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 175

X. FLINT CELTS AND AXES 186

XI. SCRAPERS 198

Types with one or more scraping edges, without or with notch

(including circular) 198

XII. CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 210

Perforators 210

Cached flint objects 216

XIII. HAMMER-STONES AND HAMMERS 222

XIV. CONCLUSIONS AS TO CHIPPED IMPLEMENTS 232

XV. GROUND STONE 251

Polished stone hatchets or celts—the classification of

hatchets, adzes, gouges, and axes 251

XVI. GROUND STONE 273

The adze and the gouge 273

XVII. GROUND STONE 287

Grooved stone axes 287

Fluted stone axes 316

Conclusions as to celts, adzes, gouges, and axes 322

XVIII. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 329

The gorget and ornaments as seen by early explorers 329

XIX. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 362

The gorgets 362

Broken and worked gorgets 362

XX. GROUND STONE 376

Winged problematical forms 376

XXI. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 402

Pick and crescent, the boat-shaped, bar-forms, etc. 402

Bars and bar-amulets 402

Conclusions as to gorgets, winged objects, etc. 410

XXII. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 418

The spud-shaped implement 418

Classification 420

XXIII. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 431

Plummet-shaped stones: stone rings 431

XXIV. GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 443

Bicaves, or discoidal stones, tubes, etc. 443

Tubular forms 453

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA

CHAPTER I

WHY A CLASSIFICATION BASED ON ARCHÆOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALONE IS NEEDED

In 1907 the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable work entitled

“Handbook of American Indians.”[1] This volume was the result of years

of labor on the part of about forty-five contributors. Had the “Handbook

of American Indians” treated of Stone-Age man as extensively as it has

dealt with modern tribes, historical occurrences, and arts and customs,

there would be no occasion for “The Stone Age.” Indeed it would be

presumptuous for one to offer the public “The Stone Age,” did the

“Handbook of American Indians” take up prehistoric cultures in complete

detail.

It is no more than right that this word of explanation be presented, in

order that my purpose in writing “The Stone Age” may be made clear, as

well as that the difference between the two works should be emphasized.

There is room for both publications, and I particularly recommend the

“Handbook of American Indians” to students and librarians, for it serves

an admirable purpose in bringing into reasonable compass everything

relating to Indian tribes, languages, arts, and customs. But it must

also be known that “The Stone Age” is a very different work from the

“Handbook of American Indians.”

[Illustration:

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

Herndon, Tennessee.

]

In the “Handbook” the writers have concentrated their attention upon the

life of the American Indian as seen through the eyes and conceived by

the brains of those familiar with Indian history of the past two

centuries. Under various citations are axes, arrows, copper objects, and

other artifacts treated. But these must be necessarily brief, excellent

though they are. And I speak in no hostile criticism whatsoever in

stating that the “Handbook of American Indians” could not take up these

subjects in detail. While I highly recommend the “Handbook of American

Indians,” I am persuaded that the life of the Indian of to-day is

influenced by his contact with the white people; that he has drifted far

away from Stone-Age times; that while there were examples of real

aboriginal culture to be found in America during the past century, yet

the great bulk of the natives of this country passed out of the Stone

Age with the advent of the French into Canada, the Spaniards into the

South, and the Puritans into New England. It seems to me that the study

of all these learned individuals, the results of which are set forth in

the Indian “Handbook,” has led many of them to consider prehistoric life

in America as nearly the same as the life of our Indians for the past

one or two centuries. I cannot believe that the arts of the past are the

same to any appreciable extent as those which obtained at the time of

the Lewis and Clark expedition, and I am convinced that the tribes

living at the time of Lewis and Clark practiced arts which are to-day,

if not extinct, at least greatly inferior to those of ancient times.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the ceremonies practiced by the

tribes of to-day are of special value in measuring or understanding

prehistoric life.

[Illustration:

FIG. 2. A block of flint from a quarry in Indian Territory. (S. 1–2.)

Phillips Academy collection. See Figs. 3, 7, 11, etc., for further

reduction of this form.

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

etc.

]

All of this does not mean that such studies have no value. On the

contrary, they are of the greatest value in ethnology. What I mean is

that they are of little value to the archæologist. The archæologist must

live in the past, and must deal with stone, shell, bone, and clay

objects, the like of which are not in use to-day. He must, through long

and painstaking labors both in the field and in the museum, form his

deductions. In these he is aided by numerous reports, papers, books, and

other published records of explorers, travelers, archæologists, and

ethnologists. But he must remember that he is studying the past and not

the present—an unwritten past, in fact.

It is well to emphasize the fact that “The Stone Age” is a

classification of man’s handiwork. It is not a work relating to

cultures, although remarks as to the culture and relation of tribes are

suggested frequently by certain types of specimens. And the cultures I

describe are ancient cultures, not modern. The linguistic map compiled

by Major Powell, and the “Handbook of American Indians” present the

habitations of existing tribes and their customs, far better and more

comprehensively than could I. The Sioux, the Cherokees, the Iroquois (or

any one of a score of tribes), may occupy the same region to-day that

other and extinct bands of red men claimed for their own centuries ago,

and the artifacts found therein may or may not be comparable with those

made and used by the present inhabitants of the section. It is these

older things and cultures to which I would confine “The Stone Age.”

In some respects the points of view of the ethnologist and of the

student of folk-lore and linguistics on the one hand, and of the

archæologist on the other, are quite divergent. And touching upon this

variance of opinion there is something to be said.

It has occurred to me that those museum men who collect and study modern

material more than the prehistoric have not a clear perspective of the

past in this country. As against this statement these gentlemen might

properly reply that those of us who study olden times fall into grievous

errors because we do not explain ancient cultures through a study of

cultures among living tribes.

[Illustration:

FIG. 3. (S. 2–3.) Block of flint; partly worked. W. A. Jacobs

collection. Similar to Fig. 5.

]

If any man will read carefully the “Jesuit Relations” and the narrations

of our earliest explorers among the Indians, he will see at once that

there is a great gulf between the aborigines of long ago and the Indians

of the present. The Sun Dance as witnessed by Catlin among the Mandans

and the Sun Dance as seen by Dr. George A. Dorsey on the Kiowa

Reservation are quite different affairs. The latter showed white man’s

influence, the former was more aboriginal. Much of the ancient or

prehistoric life we cannot reconstruct, but the day is coming when by

minute and unceasing study of these peculiar objects, and by the process

of elimination, we shall arrive at certain definite conclusions as to

the life of man in the past.

The aboriginal man was influenced by what he saw and heard in the world

of nature surrounding him. His religion, folk-lore, daily life, and his

entire being, were affected, modified, or directed by the primitive

world,—that world of the forest, the plain, the air, and the waters. To

study him aright we must cast aside our modern civilization, and if

possible—and that is very difficult—place ourselves in his world. The

Indian of to-day is not in that world. He hears his grandparents speak

of the “buffalo days,” and that conveys some meaning to his mind. But he

cannot go beyond the buffalo days; he knows nothing of the more

interesting times preceding. He can tell you about the folk-lore of his

tribe, yet he has no tradition of the first Spaniards, whether De Soto

or Coronado, or others. Notwithstanding that these Spaniards traversed

many Indian lands, and bore in their hands unheard-of weapons which made

smoke and noise, and killed at a distance; that they were clad in iron

suits, and were riding horses,—one hears little or nothing about it.

Such scenes must have impressed Indians who had never beheld the like

before, and one would imagine that there would be traditions handed down

regarding these miraculous strangers, yet one reads in vain for any

folk-lore relating to the coming of the Spaniards. This has always

appeared to me as one of the arguments against the trustworthiness of

folk-lore in matters of evidence as compared with that of archæology.

When one considers the subject in its broad aspect, one must admit that

our knowledge of prehistoric times has not advanced in the same ratio as

has our knowledge of the Indians of the historic period. The tribes

themselves show marked contrasts to-day, and in the past the differences

in culture may have been even more striking. It is, therefore, quite

likely that an implement used for a certain purpose by one tribe may

have been made use of by another tribe for a totally different purpose.

[Illustration:

FIG. 4. (S. unknown.) Probable manner of hafting the single-pointed

and the two-pointed chisels or picks, used in quarrying flint—in

digging the pits. Figs. 4 to 12, and Figs. 36 to 40, are from the

15th _Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology.

]

The tendency to explain much of prehistoric times through knowledge of

tribes whose customs are more or less saturated with white man’s

influence seems to me to be unfortunate. To make this clear, let me

present as an illustration the Sun Dance described by George Catlin, and

the Sun Dance described by Dr. Dorsey. More than sixty years intervened

between the two ceremonies. Catlin had no training in science, and

therefore some things must be overlooked in his favor. Yet the dance he

describes is purely aboriginal, or nearly so. Dr. Dorsey, on the other

hand, had all the advantages of scientific training covering many years,

and was able to take advantage of everything that he saw and heard

concerning the ceremony, to compare it with other observances and to

draw learned conclusions. Yet the Sun Dance as seen by Dorsey is totally

different, and is far less interesting and heroic than the same dance

observed by Catlin.

Going back further, we find among the “Jesuit Relations” and narratives

of other explorers, descriptions of certain ceremonies which appear to

retain their aboriginal character. In other words, they were less

European than similar affairs of later dates. Particularly is this true

among the Hurons, Iroquois, Ojibwa, etc. The customs seen among the

Sioux by Hennepin do not exist to-day.

It seems to me that in our haste to make records of tribes that are

passing away, we have published much material that the future

ethnologist will consider less important than similar observations of a

century ago. No matter how much tribes are affected by contact with

civilization, it is well to preserve their records even although the

more able scholars of the future will question some of our observations.

But while admitting the above, I wish to go on record as against the

present tendency, so general, to explain the arts, customs, daily life,

etc., of prehistoric man through our knowledge of a degenerate culture

among modern Indians.

Much of the material presented in this work cannot be explained through

such agencies; for there are hundreds of objects found in graves and

tombs, village-sites and cliff-houses, the like of which have been seen

in use among Indians by no white man whatsoever.

[Illustration:

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

for description.

]

Therefore, it appears to me that a classification based on archæological

evidence (as far as possible) is needed, and I have attempted this in

“The Stone Age.”

* * * * *

The critical reader will wonder why I have quoted at length from certain

ethnologists on such subjects as textiles, bows and arrows, clothing,

pottery, and pipes, and omitted extensive quotations in other sections.

This is done purposely. In the field of ethnology much work has been

done. The “Handbook of American Indians” covers fully such subjects as

the bow, arrow, blanket, clothing, etc. Professor Mason was our highest

authority on the basket and textiles generally, as is Professor Holmes

on ceramic art. No possible improvement could have been made by me on

the published studies of these men. And as “The Stone Age” carries out

in detail the plan of the “Handbook,” I have embodied their papers in

part or in whole, where such papers dealt with titles which I had not

made the subject of a special study.

Of problematical forms, the divisions of chipped implements, hematites,

agricultural implements, hammers, pestles, mortars, tubes, and other

types, there are frequent descriptions. But these are brief, as a rule,

and I do not concur in some of the conclusions. Therefore, I have not

quoted at any length under such titles. Copper presents an extensive and

almost new field, and Mr. Charles E. Brown has, therefore, made it one

of the longest sections.

But, while “The Stone Age” does contain many quotations of length, I

have made all these a part of one general plan, and this leads up, as

readers will observe, to the differentiation of the various

culture-groups existing in America in very ancient times. And thus,

towards the end of Volume II, one enters an entirely new field. There

are opened to archæologists possibilities of future study—very important

study, in fact.

CHAPTER II

PLANS FOR AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

There are something like three hundred museums or institutions in the

United States that contain archæological collections. These exhibits

range from more than a million objects, as in the case of the

Smithsonian Institution, or Field Museum of Chicago, or the American

Museum of Natural History, to private collections of one to ten thousand

specimens each. I have roughly estimated the number of prehistoric

artifacts available for study, or those of aboriginal manufacture that

show little influence of European culture, at about eight million

objects.

Mr. Paul M. Rea, curator of the Charleston (South Carolina) Museum and

secretary of the American Museums Association, reports to me by letter

that seventy-eight museums have 991,974 specimens by count. This total

does not include the larger museums, and forty-seven smaller ones have

not reported. Mr. Rea states: “The following museums of importance have

either not returned information or have failed to give the extent of

their collections in figures: American Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, National Museum, Peabody Museum (Cambridge),

Peabody Museum (New Haven), University of Toronto, Canada.”

I suppose that these six institutions contain a total of at least four

million prehistoric, or early historic Indian objects. Most of these

exhibits are of objects in use long before Columbus discovered America,

although many are in ethnological collections comprised of things fifty

or a hundred years old. How many specimens are in the hands of private

collectors of the United States no man may know.

Reference to the Bibliography, presented in the second volume (just

before the Index) of this publication, will convince the reader that

much of our archæological material has been described by various

writers. But there is difference between description and classification.

Save Professor W. H. Holmes’s papers upon pottery, Dr. Thomas Wilson’s

work on the classification of knives, spear-points, and arrow-heads, Mr.

Gerard Fowke’s published papers along the same lines, Mr. Charles E.

Brown’s papers upon the so-called “spud,” and copper, Mr. J. D.

McGuire’s “Pipes and Smoking Customs,” and Cushing’s contributions (see

Bibliography), everything is description and not classification. Or, if

classifications are attempted, they relate to certain types, and are

brief. The “Handbook of American Indians” describes and illustrates

artifacts, but does not classify.

[Illustration:

FIG. 6. See Fig. 7 for description.

]

Sixteen years ago, in the _Archæologist_ (May, 1894, page 156), I called

attention to the need in this country of an archæological nomenclature

and classification. Whether some one had preceded me, or whether I had

made similar suggestions earlier, I am unable to state, but am of the

opinion that the matter had been suggested in one of my articles

previous to the date mentioned. However, be that as it may, no one paid

attention to the suggestion, which was afterwards repeated in two or

three articles over my signature. About five years ago, after several

attempts at such a classification, I had a long conference with Dr.

Charles Peabody, and presently he took up the matter with the American

Anthropological Association, and a committee was formed consisting of

Professor John H. Wright, Mr. J. D. McGuire, Dr. F. W. Hodge, Dr. C.

Peabody, and myself, with Dr. Peabody as chairman. We worked long and

assiduously upon this classification. Dr. Peabody and myself grouped and

regrouped most of the available specimens in the Andover collection

before we were satisfied with the results of our labors. Then we

submitted our scheme to the other members of the Committee. After more

than a year of labor the Committee presented a preliminary

classification which was accepted by the members of the Anthropological

Association at the Baltimore meeting, December, 1908. This

classification in its complete form will be found on pages 23 to 30.

[Illustration:

FIG. 7. (S. about 2–3 to full S.) Series of rejects from the South

Mountain rhyolite quarry, showing range of shaped forms. Figs. 5, 6,

and 7 are illustrative of successive grades of development.

]

But before explaining and expanding the accepted classification, it is

well to state that we have confined our plan to the arts, industries,

and so forth, of man, as expressed in his handiwork. If one realizes

this, he will at once understand that we have not included the

vocations, or cultures, or divisions of labor, or anything of that sort.

Such would be, manifestly, out of place in a classification of the

products of man’s handiwork.

[Illustration:

FIG. 8. (S. 1–1.) These four figures which follow are from W. H.

Holmes’s paper in the 15th _Annual Report_, pp. 5–150, Bureau of

Ethnology. They are selected forms illustrating progressive steps in

the shaping of leaf-blade implements from argillite, from village-

and shop-sites at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania.

]

Were one to consider primitive or prehistoric man from every aspect of

his life, a totally different classification would be necessary, one far

broader and more comprehensive. Again, we have thought of other

classifications which suggested themselves to the investigators. None of

these could be accepted entirely, for the simple reason that we do not

yet know the purpose of every object made and used by prehistoric man.

There are, however, two grand divisions to which no one can object—the

Known and the Unknown. All objects naturally fall into these. But they

are too sweeping in character and have not been adopted,

although—regardless of form or material—all Stone-Age implements are of

one or the other of these two grand divisions: those whose purpose is

clear to us, and those regarding which we have no positive knowledge.

Under these heads one might summarize all the implements or

paraphernalia made use of by the man, the woman, the priest, the

warrior, the child. Or one might subdivide, and under the heading of

woman place objects made use of in the carrying industry, domestic

science, agriculture, etc. But in following such a classification one is

beset by certain difficulties. We are not certain as to the division of

labor between man and woman. The lines are not so sharply drawn among

barbarians as with ourselves in some matters; in others they are more

sharply drawn. The construction of a wigwam, a cabin, a tepee, or a

council-house, might be placed under archæological architecture,

primitive though it is. Just where to draw the line between the insignia

of the priest and highly ornamental possessions of the wealthy warrior

presents a problem not easy of solution.

As has been stated on page 12 the life of prehistoric man is such that

while one may classify his implements according to type or form and

material and supposed use, it is not possible in every instance to

affirm positively that this object was made use of by the man and that

by the woman, this by the priest and that by the warrior.

[Illustration:

FIG. 9. Described under Fig. 8.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 10.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 11.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 12.

All described under FIG. 8.

]

Professor Otis T. Mason, of the United States National Museum, gave much

thought to ethnological matters, and particularly his studies have been

directed toward the arts, industries, and occupations of living tribes.

These studies led him to discourse upon the divisions of labor,

beginnings of culture, on the carrying industry, agriculture, traps in

use among the Indians, and other subjects.

He grouped the various industries in the “Handbook of American Indians,”

page 97; and under the citation of implements, tools, utensils, he gave

a sketch-classification of the daily pursuits and implements used

therein. His paper upon arts and industries I copy in part (omitting

references), as it embodies one of several classifications possible of

the life of the Indian:—

“The arts and industries of the North American aborigines, including all

artificial methods of making things or of doing work, were numerous and

diversified, since they were not limited in purpose to the material

conditions of life; a technique was developed to gratify the esthetic

sense, and art was ancillary to social and ceremonial institutions and

was employed in inscribing speech on hide, bark, or stone, in records of

tribal lore, and in the service of religion....

“The arts and industries of the Indians were called forth and developed

for utilizing the mineral, vegetal, and animal products of nature, and

they were modified by the environmental wants and resources of every

place. Gravity, buoyancy, and elasticity were employed mechanically, and

the production of fire with the drill and by percussion was also

practiced. The preservation of fire and its utilization in many ways

were also known. Dogs were made beasts of burden and of traction, but

neither beast nor wind nor water turned a wheel north of Mexico in

pre-Columbian times. The savages were just on the borders of machinery,

having the reciprocating two-hand drill, the bow and strap-drills, and

the continuous-motion spindle.

“Industrial activities were of five kinds: (1) Going to nature for her

bounty, the primary or exploiting arts and industries; (2) working-up

materials for use, the secondary or intermediary arts and industries,

called also shaping arts or manufactures; (3) transporting or traveling

devices; (4) the mechanism of exchange; (5) the using-up or enjoyment of

finished products, the ultimate arts and industries, or consumption. The

products of one art or industry were often the material or apparatus of

another, and many tools could be employed in more than one; for example,

the flint arrow-head or blade could be used for both killing and

skinning a buffalo. Some arts or industries were practiced by men, some

by women, others by both sexes. They had their seasons and their

etiquette, their ceremonies and their tabus.

[Illustration:

FIG. 13. (S. about 1–3.) Hammer-stones. Phillips Academy collection.

These are from Flint Ridge, Ohio, and were made use of in the

manufacture of turtlebacks and discs.

]

“_Stone-craft._—This embraces all the operations, tools, and apparatus

employed in gathering and quarrying minerals and working them into

paints, tools, implements, and utensils, or into ornaments and

sculptures, from the rudest to such as exhibit the best expressions in

fine art. Another branch is the gathering of stone for building.

“_Water industry._—This includes activities and inventions concerned in

finding, carrying, storing, and heating water, and in irrigation; also,

far more important than any of these, the making of vessels for plying

on the water, which was the mother of many arts. The absence of the

larger beasts of burden and the accommodating waterways together

stimulated the perfecting of various boats to suit particular regions.

“_Earth-work._—To this belong gathering, carrying, and using the soil

for construction purposes, excavating cellars, building sod- and

snow-houses, and digging ditches. The Arctic permanent houses were made

of earth and sod, the temporary ones of snow cut in blocks, which were

laid in spiral courses to form low domes. The Eskimo were especially

ingenious in solving the mechanical problems presented by their

environment of ice....

[Illustration:

FIG. 14. Free-hand, or direct percussion. First step in shaping an

implement from a boulder. Figs. 23, 28, and 29 to 33 are from the

_American Anthropologist_, vol. IV, 1891—W. H. Holmes’s paper.

]

“_Ceramic art._—This industry includes all operations in plastic

materials. The Arctic tribes in the extreme North, which lack proper

stone, kneaded with their fingers lumps of clay mixed with blood and

hair into rude lamps and cooking-vessels, but in the zone of intense

cold, besides the ruder forms there was no pottery....

“_Metal-craft._—This includes mining, grinding of ores and paint,

rubbing, cold-hammering, engraving, embossing, and overlaying with

plates. The metals were copper, hematite and meteoric iron, lead in the

form of galena, and nugget gold and mica. No smelting was done.

[Illustration:

FIG. 15. Flaking-tool—being a shaft or stick, thirty inches to four

feet. These were pointed with bone or buck-horn.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 16. Flaking-tool—lower branch utilized to form a crotch in which

blow was struck. Upper opposite branch used to secure a heavy stone

to give weight and increase the pressure.

(From George Sellars’s article in the

_Smithsonian Report_, 1885, pt. 1, reprinted

in Chapter IV.)

]

[Illustration:

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

]

“_Wood-craft._—Here belongs the felling of trees with stone axes and

fire. The softest woods, such as pine, cedar, poplar, and cypress, were

chosen for canoes, house-frames, totem-poles, and other large objects.

The stems of smaller trees were used also for many purposes. Driftwood

was wrought into bows by the Eskimo. As there were no saws, trunks were

split and hewn into single planks on the North Pacific Coast. Immense

communal dwellings of cedar were there erected, the timbers being moved

by rude mechanical appliances and set in place with ropes and skids. The

carving on house-posts, totem-poles, and household furniture was often

admirable. In the Southwest underground stems were carved into objects

of use and ceremony.

“_Root-craft._—Practiced for food, basketry, textiles, dyes,

fish-poisoning, medicine, etc. Serving the purposes of wood, the roots

of plants developed a number of special arts and industries.

“_Fibre-craft._—Far more important than for textile purposes, the stems,

leaves, and inner and outer bark of plants and the tissues of animals

having each its special qualities, engendered a whole series of arts.

Some of these materials were used for siding and roofing houses; others

yielded shredded fibre, yarn, string, and rope; and some were employed

in furniture, clothing, food receptacles and utensils. Cotton was

extensively cultivated in the Southwest.

“_Seed-craft._—The harvesting of berries, acorns, and other nuts, and

grain and other seeds, developed primitive methods of gathering,

carrying, milling, storing, cooking, and serving, with innumerable

observances of days and seasons, and multifarious ceremony and lore.

“Not content with merely taking from the hand of nature, the Indians

were primitive agriculturalists. In gathering roots they first

unconsciously stirred the soil and stimulated better growth. They

planted gourds in favored places, and returned in autumn to harvest the

crops. Maize was regularly planted on ground cleared with the help of

fire, and was cultivated with sharpened sticks and hoes of bone, shell,

and stone. Tobacco was cultivated by many tribes, some of which planted

nothing else.

“_Animal industries._—Arts and industries depending on the animal

kingdom include primarily hunting, fishing, trapping, and domestication.

The secondary arts involve cooking and otherwise preparing food; the

butchering and skinning of animals, skin-dressing in all its forms;

cutting garments, tents, boats, and hundreds of smaller articles, and

sewing them with sinew and other thread; working claws, horn, bone,

teeth, and shell into things of use, ornaments, and money; and work in

feathers, quills, and hair....

[Illustration:

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

applied.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 19. Making flakes by means of lever pressure. This shows the

manner of utilizing a standing tree. (See Sellars’s article in

Chapter IV.)

]

“The artizans of both sexes were instinct with the esthetic impulse; in

one region they were devoted to quillwork, those of the next area to

carving wood and slate; the ones living across the mountains produced

whole costumes adorned with bead-work; the tribes of the central area

erected elaborate earthworks; workers on the Pacific Coast made

matchless basketry; those of the Southwest modeled and decorated pottery

in an endless variety of shapes and colored designs. The Indians north

of Mexico were generally well advanced in the simpler handicrafts, but

had nowhere attempted massive stone architecture.”

The Committee on Archæological Nomenclature presented its completed

report at the Baltimore meeting of the American Anthropological

Association, 1908. This was published in the _American Anthropologist_,

January-March, 1909, page 114. Pottery was classified first, but as I

begin with chipped implements I present the classification of pottery

last.

[Illustration:

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

handle.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 21. First two objects beveled—the one to the left showing

strength of cutting-edge. The one to the right shows a different

mode of attachment. (See Sellars’s article, Chapter IV.)

]

CLASSIFICATION OF PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS, MADE BY THE COMMITTEE ON

NOMENCLATURE

ARTICLES IN STONE

_Chipped Stone_

I. Knives and projectile points.

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

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

Types.

1. Without stem.

(A) Without secondary chipping (flakes).

(B) With secondary chipping.

(a) Pointed.

(a´) At one end.

Base concave.

Base straight.

Base convex.

Sides convex.

One side convex, one side straight.

(b) Ends convex.

(b´) At both ends.

2. With stem.

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

(a) Base concave.

(b) Base straight.

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

(a) Base concave.

(b) Base straight.

(a) Base concave.

(b) Base straight.

II. Scrapers.

Types.

1. With one or more scraping edges.

2. Without or with notch (including circular.)

III. Perforators.

Types differentiated by

1. Cross-section.

(A) Round.

(B) Quadrangular or irregular.

2. Stem.

(A) Without stem.

(B) With stem.

(a) Stem expanding gradually.

(b) Stem expanding suddenly.

IV. Hammer-stones.

Types.

1. Spheroidal.

2. Discoidal (a) “Pitted.”

(b) Not “pitted.”

3. Elongated (a) Grooved.

(b) Not grooved.

_Ground Stone_

I. Problematical forms.

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

Types.

(A) Spade-shaped.

(B) Ovate.

(a) Sides concave (not common).

(b) Sides straight.

(D) Spear-shaped.

(E) Rectangular.

(a) Sides concave.

(b) Sides straight.

(F) Shield-shaped.

(G) Pendants.

(a) Celt-shaped.

(b) Rectangular.

2. Resemblances to known forms.

(A) Animal-shaped stones.

(B) Boat-shaped stones.

(a) Longer, resembling true “bars.”

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

(D) Spool-shaped stones.

(E) Pick-shaped stones.

(F) Plummet-shaped stones.

(G) Geometrical forms.

(a) Spheres.

(b) Hemispheres.

(d) Cones.

3. Perforated stones with wings.

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

(a) Wings expanding from perforation.

(b) Wings with sides parallel.

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

II. Tubes and tube-shaped stones.

III. Beads.

IV. Pitted stones other than hammer-stones.

[Illustration:

FIG. 22. Indians quarrying and hammering quartzite boulders. From 15th

_Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology. Designed by Holmes.

]

[Illustration:

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

sharp.

]

ARTICLES IN CLAY

Simple vessels in clay may be presumed to cover all forms except

eccentric or conventionalized (i.e., animal-shaped) forms on the one

hand, and discs and pipes on the other.

[Illustration:

FIG. 24. (S. about 1–3.) A chipped hoe or digging-tool, and four

specimens from the ancient quarries near Herndon, Tennessee.

Phillips Academy collection. A complete nodule is shown in the lower

right-hand corner. The others are broken nodules, showing the

concretionary character of the flint.

]

It is suggested by the Committee that members of the American

Anthropological Association having occasion to describe clay vessels,

may classify them: first, as to material, as consisting of clay, sand,

shell, and their combinations, and as possessing certain general

ground-color; second, as to manufacture, as sun-dried or fired, as

coiled or modeled—with the variations and steps of each process; third,

as to form; fourth, as to decoration, as plain, stamped, incised, or

painted. With regard to form, the Committee begs to offer the following

definitions and suggestions in classifications.

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

upward direction.)

A simple vessel must consist of a body, and may have a rim, neck, foot,

handle, or any combination.

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

solid substance.

2. Rim: (A) A part of the vessel forming the termination of the body.

(B) A part of the vessel recognizable by a change in the thickness of

the material in the terminal sections.

3. Neck. A part of the vessel recognizable by a more or less sudden

decrease in the rate of increase or decrease of the diameter.

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

when upright.

5. Handle: A part of the vessel consisting of some outside attachment,

not serving as support.

Body: It is suggested that in comparing the forms or cross-sections of

vessels particular attention be paid to the proportion of the diameter

to the height, to the rate of change of this proportion, to the place of

change of direction in this proportion, and to refer to the following

definitions of the two dimensions:

Height: the distance from the base to a horizontal plane passing through

the most distant part of the rim.

Diameter: the distance from any one point on the sides to any opposite

point on the sides, measured on a plane at right angles to the height.

Base: the point of contact or a plane of contact of the body with a

horizontal surface.

Types. Body: These are so varied, depending on relative height and

diameter of the cross-section, that an analysis is too cumbersome to be

of service to general reference.

Neck: 1. Expanding.

2. Cylindrical.

3. Contracting.

4. Combinations.

Lip: A part of the neck or body recognizable by a suddenly increasing

diameter of neck or body, that continues increasing to the rim.

[Illustration:

FIG. 25. (S. about 1–2.) Cores and flake knives from the ancient

quarries, Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio. Material: light pink,

white and brown chalcedony. Phillips Academy collection.

]

Foot: 1. Continuous.

(A) Expanding.

(B) Cylindrical.

(D) Combinations.

Feet: 2. Not continuous.

Differentiated by

(A) Number.

(B) Angle with the horizontal.

(a) Expanding upward.

(b) Perpendicular.

Handles. Types.

Differentiated by

1. Number.

2. Position on the vessel.

(A) Body.

(B) Neck.

(D) Combinations.

3. Form.

(A) Continuous with body or neck.

(B) Not continuous with body or neck.

(a) With constant direction.

(b) With varying direction.

(A′) Round.

(B′) Flat.

(C′) Coiled.

Here ends the Committee’s Classification, but there should be added, I

feel convinced, articles in bone, shell, copper, hematite, mica, and

cannel coal. Copper has been classified by Mr. Charles E. Brown, while I

have grouped bone, shell, and hematite.

CHAPTER III

THE CLASSIFICATION

QUARRYING MATERIALS

We have seen that Professor Mason dealt with occupations rather than

implements,[2] and did not attempt a classification of artifacts.

The result of the Committee’s investigation was to the effect that we

should classify objects as to form and material, not taking into account

possible use in our grouping. It was supposed that whoever made use of

the classification would present his own interpretation of the meaning

of these various forms.

The classification was intended merely as a skeleton on which future

classifications were to be built. It must be understood that the

expansion of this classification and the changes found necessary and

presented here in “The Stone Age” are submitted on my own

responsibility. The classifications in axes, celts, copper, bone and

shell, mortars and pestles, etc., were made by me because the Committee

did not present grouping of these forms; all of which is no reflection

on the Committee. It is simply that as no classification of these other

things existed, it was necessary to make one.

In describing ancient art there is another method of

classification—according to locality. But in any work as large as “The

Stone Age,” the adoption of such classification necessitates more or

less repetition, and I think it better to describe under a given chapter

all the implements of one kind no matter where found in the United

States than to treat of geographical distributions. I consider this

method less cumbersome and more satisfactory than the separate treatment

of all the localities. So far as possible all illustrations are confined

to prehistoric objects.

No illustrations—save one or two—of axes in handles, wooden objects or

ancient bows are offered. Readers are referred to the museums for such

exhibits. To show such, would swell the volumes to unwieldy proportions,

and “The Stone Age” already contains more figures than were originally

intended.

The textile fabrics, wooden objects, and other things of perishable

materials, except where buried in caves in the dry Southwest, have long

ago disappeared, and therefore, to make comparisons, one must inspect

the older forms among ethnological objects in the collections at New

York, Chicago, Denver, Washington, Milwaukee, Cambridge, Toronto, etc.,

for illustration. There are many hafted implements of various kinds in

existence in museums to-day—particularly in the case of specimens

collected one hundred years ago—which present trustworthy evidence as to

how similar things may have been mounted in prehistoric times. Again,

there are hundreds of modern objects collected in the past century among

living tribes that to the student of archæology appear to exhibit white

man’s influence and are of little or no value in understanding real

Stone-Age times. As an illustration of this, I mention the various forms

of catlinite pipes, recent examples of which are quite degenerate as

compared with the old forms. The same is true of most of the Pueblo

pottery, and the war-clubs of Plains tribes.

[Illustration:

FIG. 26. (S. 2–3.) Flint knives, made of red and yellow jasper.

William C. Mills, Columbus, Ohio.

]

It seems strange that with the thousands of pages on archæological and

ethnological subjects, with which our libraries are filled, no such

classification was attempted previously. The time is certainly opportune

for such a work and while I am aware that the following pages are more

or less incomplete, still I believe that some one should make a

beginning, even though the future observers, who will know much more

regarding these interesting and mysterious artifacts of the past than do

we of the present, may question some of the observations herein set

forth.

[Illustration:

FIG. 27. (S. 1–2.) Flint cores from which the knives are made.

Specimen to the left, red and yellow jasper. Specimen to the right,

maroon colored jasper. Flint Ridge material. William C. Mills,

Columbus, Ohio. This and some thirty other figures loaned by Mills,

appeared in the publications of the Ohio State Archæological and

Historical Society, and illustrated his explorations.

]

I suggest that the critical reader bear in mind that a classification of

all the implements of the United States brings out certain facts or

tendencies, or may indicate conclusions which escape the observer who is

interested in the exploration of a given territory rather than in a

study of types, or who is not familiar with the implements of most of

the United States.

Therefore, “The Stone Age” is narrowed to a description of the

ornaments, utensils, weapons, and artifacts of ancient man in America.

Otherwise, one could easily fill ten volumes instead of two, and even

then not exhaust the subject.

No description of mounds, earthworks, cliff-houses, pueblos, or

village-sites is possible in “The Stone Age.” Readers are referred to

the Bibliography, where titles relative to mound, cliff, fortification,

and village-site exploration and description will enable them to consult

publications relating to these subjects.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CULTURE

Some remarks upon the antiquity of man in America will be presented in

the concluding chapter of Volume II.

No one will deny that the present high culture enjoyed by most races and

tribes of men is the result or culmination of thousands of years of

development. Practically the entire world has advanced beyond the Stone

Age, and much of it may be said to have gone even beyond the Iron Age,

and into that of electricity. No sane man doubts that at some time or

other all the divisions of the human race were in the Stone Age. Whether

all the various peoples of many tongues and different colors are derived

from the same stock, it is not my purpose to discuss. It is sufficient

to state that while certain races of men developed a high culture,

others did not. Whether all these peoples had similar advantages or

began more or less in the same fashion, is beyond the scope of this

work. Suffice it to say that even so far back as in times undoubtedly

prehistoric, in every country the archæologist observes differences in

culture. This is true of America as of Egypt, or Europe, or Asia. We

have heard much with regard to the late date of the Stone Age in our own

country. True, stone implements and arts persisted some time after the

discovery by Columbus. Yet the recentness of the Stone Age in the United

States is easily explained when one considers that America was unknown

until 1492. Because stone implements were in use in remote portions of

the United States two centuries ago, it does not follow that man on this

continent is of no antiquity as compared with his brother in Europe.

In fact man may be, for aught we know, as old in America as in Europe or

Asia. There have been hundreds of pages published by Professor Holmes,

Dr. Abbott, the Reverend Dr. Wright, Dr. Wilson, Professor Chamberlin,

and others as to whether man of the glacial period, or earlier tertiary

man, existed in America. The evidence for and against the presence of

man twenty or thirty thousand years ago in the United States has been

presented in numerous places, and the Bibliography will acquaint readers

with what has been said. It is not my purpose to attempt to decide this

question—as to the age of man on the American continent.

There are certain cultures that appear older than others, and it is

quite likely that they are older. All of these will appear in the

forthcoming pages, properly substantiated by such evidence as I am able

to present.

Let us, then, drop glacial or tertiary man and consider quarry material

and methods of working.

QUARRIES

During the process of manufacture of implements of flint the first forms

would scarcely fit into a classification based on complete forms or

types; therefore I have decided to begin a description of chipped

objects with a chapter on methods of quarrying and manufacture.

The quarries from which we know aboriginal man in the United States

obtained material for his knives and projectile points number perhaps

twenty. There may be small isolated sites, but the following were the

chief sources of material:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 28. Indirect percussion, as practiced by the Wintuns and also

described by B. B. Redding. In addition to this, Figs. 26, 32, 33,

and 34 are from the _American Anthropologist_, vol. II, 1891—W. H.

Holmes’s paper.

]

Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio.

The jasper quarries on the Susquehanna and Delaware.

Those of Indian Territory, Missouri, and Illinois.

Near Coshocton, Ohio.

Near Allentown, Pennsylvania.

The obsidian cliffs of Yellowstone Park.

Piney Branch, in the District of Columbia.

Southwestern New Mexico.

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

Wyoming and California quarries.

(See Bibliography for others.)

[Illustration:

FIG. 29. Indirect percussion. Two persons being concerned. Practiced

by the Apaches, according to George Catlin.

]

Flint, chert, chalcedony, jasper, quartz, argillite, and other materials

of flint-like character occurred in regular veins, or in nodules or in

ordinary boulders or pebbles in the drift. Aboriginal man, therefore,

mined in a quarry or he dug in the drift, or he picked up from the

surface, or he worked in a limestone stratum to extract the nodular

flint. He sought in any one of these places according to his locality

and character of the material and its position. At Flint Ridge, the

largest flint quarries in the United States, there is a hill or ridge,

nearly eight miles in length and varying from a few hundred yards to as

much as three miles in width, which is literally filled with depressions

varying from small pits to one nearly a hundred feet in diameter and

twenty or more feet in depth at the present time. The flint from this

quarry is distributed throughout Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, portions of

Pennsylvania, and even west of the Mississippi. The amount of work done

at Flint Ridge by the aborigines passes comprehension. When one

considers their primitive methods of quarrying, it is surprising that

they were able to quarry such hard material as flint. Without the use of

fire, which they had to apply very carefully, first placing a coating of

clay over the flint, they would have been unable to remove any

considerable portion of the material.

The Flint Ridge chalcedony is beautifully colored, red, blue, cream

color, pink, and pure white. It is easily chipped, and was highly prized

by the natives.

I have not space for a long narrative of how the flint was quarried. It

is of more importance to tell readers how the implements were

manufactured. Mr. Gerard Fowke has made a study of Flint Ridge and

published an able paper in the National Museum Reports, 1884–5. He also

wrote a chapter for “Primitive Man in Ohio.” His paper was reprinted in

Bulletin no. III, Department of Archæology, Phillips Academy, 1906. I

quote, as to how the flint was quarried, from his paper:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 30. Flaking by pressure, a bone implement being used; (_a_) the

bone tool, (_b_) the stone, (_c_) the flake.

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 31. Flaking by pressure, a bone point being used, the implement

to be shaped resting on a support.

]

“Digging away the earth with such tools as he could improvise,—pointed

sticks hardened by fire, antler, bone, or stone,—he came to the surface

of the flint. This resisted all his efforts until he thought of the

effects of heat. Placing wood upon it, he set fire to the pile. When the

stone had reached a high temperature he threw cold water on it; this

caused it to shatter and crack in all directions. Casting aside the

fragments, he repeated the operation, until he had finally burned his

way to the limestone beneath. Removing all burned portions of the flint,

he next procured a quantity of fine clay and spread a thick coating on

the top and sides of the stone, to prevent injury to it. Then building a

fire at the bottom of the hole, he soon burned away the limestone and

the lower part of the flint stratum, leaving the top projecting. This he

broke loose with large boulders of quartz or granite; hammers of this

sort, weighing from twenty to one hundred and fifty pounds, have been

found in the bottoms of pits that have been cleared out. Knocking loose

the clay, which had burned almost as hard as the stone, he found himself

in possession of a block of clear, pure flint. By means of the same

hammers he broke this into pieces of a convenient size for handling.

These were carried to a spot near by, which may be termed a

“blocking-out” shop. Here they were further broken by smaller hammers,

and brought somewhat into the shape of the implements which were to be

made from them. The work was never, or very seldom, carried beyond this

stage at the spot where it was begun; the subsequent manipulation was at

some other place, best designated as a “finishing-shop.” These are

characterized by quantities of small chips, flakes and spalls, broken

implements, and unfinished pieces, which were unavailable by reason of

some flaw or defect not discernible until the final work was begun. The

finishing touches were always made by means of pressure with a bone,

antler, or some other tough substance. Many finishing-shops are located

near the quarries, others at a distance, some of them several miles

away. The principal one was near the cross-road; here a pile of fine

chips, covering one fourth of an acre, and fully six feet in depth at

the central portion, existed when the country was first settled by the

whites, but from various causes it has been reduced until it now is all

of one level. This, while the largest, is only one of several hundred

such places.”

Similar operations were employed in Indian Territory and elsewhere. In

the quarries of Little River, Tennessee, the flint occurred in nodular

form in limestone ledges. It was easier for the natives to burn the

limestone and remove the nodules than to quarry in the flint layers of

Flint Ridge. Fig. 1 shows the nodules outcropping in two layers in the

limestone ledge.

Mr. D. N. Kern, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, informs me that there are

fully two hundred pits of various sizes where the natives quarried

material, within some miles of his home.

Professor Wm. H. Holmes published in the 15th _Annual Report_ of the

Bureau of Ethnology a comprehensive paper entitled “Stone Implements of

the Potomac-Chesapeake Tide-Water Province.” This paper embodies the

observations for a number of years on the archæology of Virginia,

Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The description of the quarries

along Piney Branch, a small tributary of the Potomac, in the District of

Columbia, in this volume is complete, and I wish to recommend to

students and readers who wish to obtain a broad understanding of the

subject a perusal of Professor Holmes’s paper. The entire genesis of

implement making is ably presented.

While other quarries have not been so carefully worked, and certainly

not described in detail, the method employed by the prehistoric peoples

at the Piney Branch quarry, and in the rhyolite sites further back in

the hills on either side of the Potomac, may be taken as typical of

aboriginal quarrying in the United States. That is, of quarrying in beds

where boulders or nodules are embedded in clay or gravel or till. The

boulder or nodule materials and the flint strata occurring in different

formations were quarried by different methods. The Piney Branch quarries

are an illustration of the separation of material from the general mass

and composite of boulder and clay. It was easy to get at the material,

but more difficult to fashion the implements, because quartzite, quartz,

and argillite were harder to work than flint. At Flint Ridge, while

quarrying was extremely difficult, the material once secured could be

very easily fashioned. The planes of cleavage of flint, as all know,

were very different from those of the boulders found at Piney Branch.

[Illustration:

FIG. 32. Flaking by pressure. Manner of holding as observed among many

tribes by J. W. Powell and others.

]

[Illustration:

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

]

One illustration, Fig. 40, reproduced from Professor Holmes’s plate, is

self-explanatory. Before the stage represented in Fig. 37 is reached one

must imagine the ordinary oval or water-worn pebble of either quartzite

or argillite. This pebble was pried by means of levers from its ancient

bed. Both Professor Holmes and Mr. F. H. Gushing have constructed

life-sized models of Indians at work in the Piney Branch quarries

digging, hammering, flaking, in order to produce blades. (See Fig. 22.)

At Piney Branch itself the abundance of material made it a mecca for the

prehistoric people of the region. Several trenches dug by workmen under

the direction of Professor Holmes penetrated this mass of material to a

considerable distance. All of these, while varying in minor details,

emphasize the general proposition that the quarry was in use for a

considerable length of time.

I present several illustrations showing the method of hammering the

rough turtleback and partly finished blades and the completed forms.

These are from Professor Holmes’s paper. In addition I show

hammer-stones and blades from the collection of Phillips Academy,

Andover, representing similar work on other sites.

The difference to be noted between Piney Branch material and the

material of chert and flint, the working of which is described by Mr.

George Sellars, in Chapter IV, page 48, of this book, is considerable,

and the probable method of treatment varies in a more marked degree.

Apparently there was more pecking, hammering, etc., of these rude forms

than in the case of flint and chert. That is, flint and chert lent

themselves more readily to the flaker’s art.

The quarry at Piney Branch was productive of large numbers of rejects.

This is true of other sites as well, but it would seem that where

material was scarce, the natives made use of many objects quite as crude

as those we have designated as rejects. Only flawless materials seem to

have been made into implements at Piney Branch, at Flint Ridge, on the

Little River sites in Tennessee, and about the jasper quarries of

Pennsylvania. This is natural when one reflects that there was a wealth

of material and that the Indian naturally selected the best. But were

these objects, blocks of flint, and objects of all kinds deposited in

any of the large prehistoric villages, I am confident that much of the

material called by Professor Holmes rejects, would have been made use

of. I think we have overlooked the significance of this fact in our

archæological studies. On the Great Plains, and at certain places in

Texas, about the Mandan sites, and elsewhere, there are implements quite

as rude and ill-shaped as many of those illustrated in the several

reports as rejects, yet which show unmistakable evidence of usage.

[Illustration:

FIG. 34. (S. about 2–3.) Scrapers and rejects from an ancient workshop

near Swarts, on the Rio Mimbres, New Mexico. Material, unknown.

There are ancient ruins near by. Phillips Academy collection.

(Clement L. Webster.)

]

Again, the turtlebacks and discs and the other materials may be in part

rejects, and yet may represent material blocked out for transportation.

I have always been a firm believer in the theory that, as most of the

flint was carried on the backs of Indians, or transported in canoes from

one point to another, the discs, turtlebacks, and other forms which had

been quickly blocked out by a few strokes of the stone hammer,

represented material to be transported to distant villages and there

refashioned. We may explain the quantity of such material on all these

quarry sites by means of a dozen different theories. The workers blocked

out more than they could transport; they were interrupted during the

course of their labors by the enemy; they were prevented from returning;

they found that the home villages were supplied with knives, and

arrow-points, and did not return to the quarries for another supply; and

so on. That much of the material of quarries is rejects and refuse no

one will deny, but that all of it is to be so classed I do not believe.

[Illustration:

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

]

There seems to be no evidence that Flint Ridge, Piney Branch, Little

River, the Indian Territory quarries, or other sites were worked in

historic times. On the contrary, one may believe that the quarries

developed through a long period of time. The very character of them

seems to indicate this. If America has been peopled for thousands of

years, I can see no reasons against the suggestion that the quarries

were discovered three or four thousand years ago, that a few Indians

visited them each season, or at intervals, and that quarrying ceased

about the year 1600. While this is my opinion merely, yet I have given

the subject a great deal of thought. If all the material in a certain

region came from a special quarry, no long period of time could be

assigned that quarry. But an inspection of village-sites, of local

collections, of museum collections, will teach the observer that not

only is there present material from the local quarry, but there is also

a considerable quantity of chipped implements of flint, or chert, or

quartz, or rhyolite, or jasper, or other stones which are not native to

the locality. Not one site, but many sites furnished material. It is

evident from the abundance of chipped material that river boulders, the

talus of bluffs, and drift pebbles furnish a great part of the chipped

implements of this country. If the Indian found a suitable pebble or

block of flint or fragment of stone, he most certainly would fashion

that into an implement rather than travel a considerable distance and

work laboriously to produce that which was found nearer home. Because of

the observations cited above, I cannot believe that the quarries

represent the work of aboriginal man during a few generations, but that

they indicate, perhaps, three or four thousand years of occupation. Dr.

W. C. Barnard, of Seneca, Missouri, has given the subject much study. He

contributes his observation as follows:—

[Illustration:

FIG. 36. (S. 1–3 to 1–6.) Rejects from rhyolite quarried from the

mass, in upper row. Rejects from jasper quarried from the mass, in

lower row.

]

“Prehistoric man of this region [the Ozarks] secured his principal

supply of flint from boulders and pebbles found in the beds of

water-courses as evinced by the character of the material found in

hundreds of workshops along the banks of streams. All the more primitive

implements are of this boulder and pebble material.

[Illustration:

FIG. 37. (S. 1–3 to 1–6.) This figure is a portion of Professor

Holmes’s plate, chap. 1 (15th _Annual Report_, Bureau of Ethnology),

which for convenience I have divided. It carries to complete form

the specimens shown in Fig. 36. Numbers 7, 8, and 9 are cache forms

worked down from quartzite boulders; 9, 10, and 11 are from quartz

pebbles. It will be observed that these six specimens could be used

as knives, or when notched or barbed they were available as

projectile points.

]

“Later the rich deposits of cream white chert located in what is now

Ottawa County, Oklahoma, were discovered, yet this, I am sure, after a

close study of the two flint quarries, must have been in comparatively

recent times, for only a small per cent of implements made of the quarry

chert are found in the hundreds of village-sites and workshops of this

region, and all these, making due allowance for texture and location,

look new compared with the deeply patina-covered and frequently

decomposed surfaces of the pebble flint implement.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 38. (S. 1–3 to 1–6.) Continuation of Professor Holmes’s plate

(Fig. 36). First and second rows, _g_, _h_, and _i_, and _g_, _h_,

are rhyolite and jasper objects of quarry material. These represent

first the blades and forms more convenient for exchange, and in the

series _j_ to _q_ the completed projectile points.

]

Figs. 39 and 40 illustrate the process of manufacture. Fig. 39 shows

native quartzite boulders which have been reduced from _a_, to forms _e_

and _f_. These are not implements, and while Professor Holmes says they

were not transported, yet I am of the opinion that letters _e_, _f_,

_g_, and _h_, represent types which were in such form as would admit of

transportation. That is, they represent stone in such form as to be of

value for barter or exchange. If these specimens show flaws, as might

letters _a_, _b_, and _c_, then they are properly rejects, or if they

have hard protuberances which resisted the skill of the Indian, then

they are rejects.

Readers should compare Figs. 39 and 40 with Figs. 31 and 36. A

difference is observed between the pebbles and boulders shown in Figs.

39 and 24, and the quarry material shown in Figs. 31 and 36.

[Illustration:

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

]

[Illustration:

FIG. 40. (S. 1–3.) Series of flaked forms illustrating progressive

steps in the manufacture of projectile points, etc., from quartzite

boulders, obtained from shop- and village-sites about Washington

City.

]