HAMMER-STONES AND HAMMERS
These were classified by the Committee under chipped implements as “IV,
chipped stone,” although most of them are not chipped. But they were
much used in shaping chipped objects, and I have left them in the place
assigned by the Committee.
1. Spheroidal. │
────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
2. Discoidal (a) “Pitted.” │(Figs. 205, 206.)
(b) Not “pitted.”│ „
────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────
3. Elongated (a) Grooved. │(Figs. 207, 209, 210.)
(b) Not grooved. │ „
The types of stone hammers and hammer-stones are fully described by J.
D. McGuire in the _American Anthropologist_, in volumes 4, 5, and 6. Mr.
McGuire has devoted more study to the manufacture of hammer-stones and
stone hammers than any other person, and has made a number of implements
using the stone hammer and fragments of other stones to reduce irregular
surfaces. I quote from Mr. McGuire’s article in the _Anthropologist_ for
October, 1891:—
“An examination of these objects will demonstrate that three types
probably contain them all.
“First. The oblong or flattened ellipsoid having a pit on one or both
sides; the pits probably being intended as finger-holds to relieve the
index finger from the constant jar occasioned by quickly repeated blows
on a hard surface. The periphery of these will often be found quite
smooth, at other times rough, according as it has been last used as a
hammer or as a rubber, although hammers of hard and tough material, when
used on stone of similar character, wear away on the periphery as though
rubbed. Often one or both of the flattened sides shows the effect of
rubbing, as in Fig. 1.
“Second. The spherical implement slightly flattened at the poles showing
a battered and commonly a smooth surface. These two types may be
considered as common all over the world.
“The third type would appear to be the grooved hammer, of the use and
distribution of which less is known. This type was evidently intended
for hafting, which would interfere with its use as a rubber.
[Illustration:
FIG. 205. (S. 1–2.) University of Vermont collection. This illustrates
several hammer-stones and rude pestles, for the hammer is closely
related to the pestle.
]
“All three types vary greatly in dimensions, but as a rule the two first
are of a size suitable for hand use, not only for hammering but also for
rubbing.
[Illustration:
FIG. 206. (S. 1–4.) Hand-hammers. W. A. Holmes’s collection, Chicago,
Illinois. It seems that the hardness of the stone was a prominent
factor in the time consumed in making an implement. Mr. McGuire once
used a jasper hammer-stone during the total of forty hours’ work,
and yet the surface of the stone showed slight wear. His opinion is
that the hammer of quartzite—hard quartzite, for there are soft
varieties of that stone—is hard enough to fashion a number of
implements.
]
“It is intended to discuss here the hammer used in stone pecking as
distinguished from the chipping hammer. By the latter a slower and more
deliberate blow would be given, and consequently its shape would not be
material.
“That nuts and bones could be cracked and paint and grain could be
ground with hammers is admitted, but it is contended that no reasonable
amount of such work would cause the implements to present the appearance
they do if only so used. Moreover, any unshaped stone would have
answered these purposes as well as a finished implement; hence, is it
reasonable to suppose that savage man would trouble himself to fashion
useless objects?
[Illustration:
FIG. 207. (S. slightly less than 1–2.) Two hammer-stones. Collection
of C. Albee, Red Rock, Montana.
]
“Hammers were made of any hard stone that could be obtained. It is
common to find them of diorite, quartzite, or other tough material
capable of the greatest amount of work with the least wear; they would
be gritty, as is almost invariably the case, to grind the pecked surface
as work progressed. It can hardly be doubted that men living in an age
of stone must have been conversant not only with the best sources of
material, but also with its adaptability for particular uses.
“Some may doubt whether the stone hammer could do the work suggested
[Mr. McGuire illustrated the truth of this contention by making an axe].
It is made of a close-grained black porphyry that in 1878 was pecked out
and grooved entirely with a stone hammer by the writer as a first
effort, to demonstrate the method of axe-grooving. The work on this
stone represents approximately five hours’ labor. When the hardness of
material is taken into consideration, it is safe to conclude that it
could not have taken more than one half as much time to groove an
ordinary axe, since they are of much softer material. From this may
roughly be calculated the time that would be required to fashion a stone
axe or in fact any other stone implement which was made by pecking and
polishing; and it will be seen that, granting a liberal allowance of
time, the manufacture of stone implements consumed a small portion of
the time supposed to be requisite. The statement that the manufacture of
an axe or in fact of any other stone implement was a long process has so
often been made that it may be regarded as a common belief among
archæologists. So great have the difficulties of their manufacture been
supposed to be that it has been surmised even that early races had other
than stone tools.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 208. (S. 3–4.) This may be an unfinished discoidal or “bicave,”
or it may be a hammer-stone finer than the average. Hy. B. Bischoff,
Collinsville, Illinois.
]
The various types of hammer-stones used in chipping flint implements are
shown in Chapter II, Figs. 13 and 14, of this book.
In the _Anthropologist_ for April, 1892, Mr. McGuire gave an account of
the manufacture of the nephrite axe. I quote from Mr. McGuire’s paper as
follows:—
[Illustration:
FIG. 209. (S. 1–4.) Phillips Academy collection.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 210. (S. 1–3.) Phillips Academy collection.
The various types of grooved hammers.
]
“The material of a grooved nephrite axe made by the writer is from New
Zealand, and was procured through the kindness of Professor Clarke, of
the United States National Museum. This stone is one of the toughest as
well as of the hardest known, and when work was first commenced on it
was irregular in shape as when broken from the large boulder, with sharp
edges that cut the hand as the stone was struck with the hammer. In
pecking with the stone hammer, about one hundred and forty blows were
given to the minute. The hammers first used were of quartzite from Piney
Branch, on the edge of Washington City. About forty pebbles were
destroyed before one was found tough enough to stand the necessary
pounding. With a single exception, none lasted more than ten minutes.
The exception was a close-grained gray quartzite, with which was
performed eight or ten hours’ work.
“Gabbro or black granite was then used for a hammer and was found
useless; gneiss proved to be no better, and the work appeared hopeless.
Finally, through the kindness of Mr. Weed, of the United States
Geological Survey, a rough piece of compact yellow jasper from the
Yosemite was obtained, with which about forty hours’ work was done. The
jasper was worn but slightly, the nephrite losing about the same weight
as the jasper. This hammer is yet large enough to manufacture many
dozens, if not hundreds, of such implements as the celts and axes
usually found in this section of country. With a nephrite hammer of
suitable shape, having a narrow periphery, the work of fashioning this
axe could probably have been done in one half the time.
“In the process of manufacture, owing to a flaw, a large piece of the
blade was broken off and a second flaw, running diagonally through the
specimen, threatened to destroy it if the hard pounding was continued.
Work on it had therefore to be curtailed. The groove could not be worked
deeper because the jasper hammer did not have a narrow edge. The outline
having been carried as far as was thought safe, grinding on a block of
rotten granite was resorted to; the granite was kept wet and the
nephrite, being held in the hand, was rubbed backward and forward for
about five hours. Subsequently it was polished with a pebble of compact
quartzite, both dry and wet, the process occupying about six hours. The
axe was then rubbed with wood and with buckskin to further polish it,
but apparently without effect. The pecking occupied 55 hours and 10
minutes, which period, estimating the number of blows per minute as 140,
would give over 460,000 blows required for the manufacture of the
implement. This stone weighed when first received 7625 troy grains; the
present weight is 5143 grains; the loss therefore is 2482 grains. This
specimen, however, can hardly be taken as a fair standard of aboriginal
work, for in selecting the material a workman would naturally choose a
pebble as nearly the desired shape as could be procured, and thus avoid
a large part of the labor. The savage, if we can believe the accounts
given of him by early travelers, was not likely to make unnecessary
exertion.
[Illustration:
FIG. 211. (S. 1–5.) Material: granite. All are from South Dakota.
Collection of Mrs. Ella V. Milliken, Alpena, South Dakota.
]
“In contrast to the obdurate nephrite, a block of kersantite was
selected. This kersantite is from New Jersey, and is a much tougher
stone than was generally used for the common stone axe or celt found in
the eastern portion of the United States. The block was exceedingly
rough when first taken in hand, yet it required less than two hours’
labor with an ordinary quartzite hammer to produce a comparatively
well-finished axe. A good idea of the time necessary to manufacture such
an implement is thus afforded. The polishing was done with sand and
water rubbed with a smooth piece of quartzite, the time required being
included in the time specified.”
In his later paper in the _Anthropologist_, for July, 1893, Mr. McGuire
continues his observations. He considers that all chipped implements
show a special fracture, and therefore the weight of the hammer and its
material and shape “are all important elements to be considered; the
intended implement must be struck with a certain weight and force, and
at a particular angle, to accomplish the desired result.” Mr. McGuire,
in his papers, follows out more in detail what Mr. Sellars originally
observed many years before any of the experiments by men connected with
the Smithsonian Institution were made.
Mr. McGuire calls attention to the difference between the heavy hammer
and the light hammer-stone:—
“The battering hammer is commonly a discoidal stone, having a rounded
periphery, with a pit on each flat surface intended to hold the thumb
and middle finger, whilst the index finger is placed on the periphery.
The pits are but slight depressions, but are sufficient to prevent the
stone from slipping as the blow is given, and at the same time enable
the workman to raise the index finger slightly, and thus save the jar
which would otherwise in a few minutes disable the arm. The blows with
the battering hammer are given at the rate of two hundred or more a
minute, which would be impossible with the ordinary chipping hammer.
With this hammer rapidity is essential, and the blow is ordinarily given
to a broad surface, and no deliberation is necessary. Battered objects
are numerous and vary greatly in size; consequently the hammer is found
to vary likewise.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 212. (S. 2–3.) Collection of W. P. Agee, Hope, Arkansas.
]
Figs. 209, 210, and 211 present eighteen hammers from various portions
of the United States.
The pitted stone, the round hammer-stone, and the other rude grooved
hammer are tools, as we have seen; but the more carefully worked grooved
hammer served a different purpose. On the Plains large hammers were
frequently made and used by Indian tribes that subsisted on the buffalo,
as it would be impossible to break the larger bones of that animal with
ordinary hand-hammers.
Some of the hammers have flat backs, as have axes, and wedges could be
inserted for securely fastening them to the handle. As has been
previously stated, primitive man was economical, and when he broke an
axe he could make the edge round and use it as a hammer. The finer
grooved hammers (Fig. 212) were undoubtedly used as weapons and lashed
in sticks to serve as clubs or maces, the handles being more or less
ornamental. Much is to be learned from a study of the hammer-stone and
the grooved hammer, and I agree with Mr. McGuire’s statement, “the
hammer is homely at best, yet the hammer tells us more of ancient times
than does the celt.”
Mr. Charles E. Brown, the able archæologist, says of these grooved
hammers:—
“They closely resemble grooved stone axes in shape, but have blunt
edges. Examples are to be seen in all of the larger Wisconsin
collections. Several specimens are ornamented with flutings.
“Mauls and club-heads were made of pebbles or small boulders and have a
groove about their middles. The smaller are said to have been used as
club-heads. Some are very rude, and others smoothed or polished.
Specimens are found in most parts of the state. They are most numerous
in northwestern Wisconsin and along Lake Superior, where they were
employed as weapons in the early struggles between the Chippewa and
Dakotas. From the Lake Superior aboriginal copper mining-pits hundreds
of stone mauls have been recovered.
“A rare type of stone club-head has two grooves. A few specimens have a
ridge on either side of the groove. Another unusual form has
intersecting grooves.
“Specimens of these hand-hammers or hammer-stones have been found on
every Indian village-site in the state. They show every stage of work,
from the ordinary pebble with its surface scarcely altered to those
dressed into convenient shape and provided with grips or hand-holds.
“Good series of these spherical stones or stone balls, from the size of
a marble to that of an orange, are in all of the larger public and
private collections. They are found on Indian village- and camp-sites,
and occasionally in mounds.”