GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
PICK AND CRESCENT, THE BOAT-SHAPED, BAR-FORMS, ETC.—CONCLUSIONS
There are many winged perforated stones different from the forms
commonly called banner-stones. In some specimens one of the wings is
omitted, the other being cut angularly, forming the L-shaped objects
shown in Figs. 353 and 354. The L-shaped objects are closely related to
the crescents. I have seen few unfinished objects of the L-shaped class.
A series of six unfinished specimens, pick or crescent type, are shown
in Fig. 356. A comparison of Figs. 355, 356, and 357 will indicate that
the range is from pick-shaped (shown in the centre of Fig. 355) to
slightly curved pick crescents, terminating in examples like the
beautiful large crescent shown in Fig. 358. This specimen is, by the
way, one of the best in any collection in this country. Little or
nothing is known regarding these pick- and crescent-shaped forms and
absolutely nothing regarding the L-shaped. So far as theory is
concerned, I am of the opinion that two of them were worn by men during
ceremonial dances, or something of that sort. Then they were fastened to
the head and stood up on either side in imitation of horns. I have no
evidence of that belief; it is simply my opinion.
BARS AND BAR-AMULETS
The “Handbook” says a little about these. Mr. A. E. Douglas, of the
American Museum, in a pamphlet published some years ago, offered remarks
concerning them. I present Figs. 364 to 368 illustrating these. All
kinds are shown from the straight bar to the ridged bar, to the highly
complicated form shown in Fig. 367. Whether these were worn on the
forearm, or tied to the head, or worn across the chest, I am unable to
state. All these various uses have been assigned them by other
observers.
It will be seen that there are not only straight bars, but bars with the
ends slightly enlarged, as specimen number 22 in Fig. 364, and also
bars, convex above, and flat underneath. One with a ridge along the back
is shown in the lower figure in 365.
The ridged gorgets gradually develop, according to my arrangement, until
they terminate in bars, or the series may be traced the other way. Five
of these are shown in Fig. 366. However, there is this difference, the
bars are perforated or grooved at each end and the ridged gorgets are
perforated on either side of the centre.
[Illustration:
FIG. 353. (S. 2–3.) All of banded slate. Andover collection. These are
the L-shaped or horn-shaped problematical forms, regarding which
absolutely nothing is known. Reference to our series of outlines
presented in Fig. 292 will indicate that there is gradual
progression in this series. The slate bars are slightly curved,
forming the dark, L-shaped type shown in the centre of the lower
row. I know nothing about these objects.
]
The remarkable specimen from Iowa presented in Fig. 367 is the most
highly developed bar-amulet that I have seen in any collection.
Fig. 360 in the upper right-hand corner is an engraved spool-shaped
object of sandstone. Numbers of these have been found in the United
States. They are of various sizes and diameters for the most part
engraved in various lines, circles, etc. The best of the shorter
articles dealing with these was published in _The Antiquarian_
(Columbus, 1897) page 172, and was written by Mr. A. F. Berlin.
Dr. Thomas Wilson in _The Swastika_, page 975, speaks of these
spool-shaped ornaments and draws comparisons between those found in
America and foreign countries. Wilson thought that they were bobbins on
which thread was wound. They appear to have been highly appreciated by
the aborigines, for they are always carefully made and decorated with
Maltese and St. Andrews crosses, zig-zag lines, sun symbols, etc.
[Illustration:
FIG. 354. (S. 1–1.) Collection of W. F. Matchett, Pierceton, Indiana.
]
The “Handbook of American Indians,” page 157, contains brief
descriptions of boat-stones, written by Gerard Fowke and Professor
Holmes. I quote their remarks:—
[Illustration:
FIG. 355 is a group of six objects from the Andover collection. (Size
1–2.) These illustrate the type of problematical form, a straight
body sloping toward the ends, and running the perforations
invariably at right angles to the grain. The two on either side are
ordinary crescent-shape. The one at the bottom is a winged type, but
is not cut down on either side to bring the wings into review.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 356. (S. 1–2.) The evolution of the crescent from the rough block
of red slate at the top, which has been pecked into shape, down to
the completed crescent at the bottom. Phillips Academy collection,
Andover. This series, arranged from the Andover collection, is made
up of specimens from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Indiana.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 357. (S. 1–2.) From the collection of Rev. James Savage, Detroit,
Michigan. Three pick-shaped objects, half-size, which are described
elsewhere in the text.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 358. (S. 1–2.) is a highly specialized crescent with flaring
ends. It is beautifully worked, highly finished, and was found by
Willard H. Davis, near the mouth of the Muskingum River in southern
Ohio.
]
“Prehistoric objects of polished stone having somewhat the shape of a
canoe, the use of which is unknown. Some have straight parallel sides
and square ends; in others the sides converge to a blunt point. A
vertical section cut lengthwise of either is approximately triangular,
the long face is more or less hollow, and there is usually a perforation
near each end; some have a groove on the outer or convex side,
apparently to receive a cord passed through the holes. Sometimes there
is a keel-like projection in which this groove is cut. It is surmised
that they were employed as charms or talismans and carried about the
person. They are found sparingly in most of the states east of the
Mississippi River, as well as in Canada. Those in the Northern States
are made principally of slate, in the South and West steatite is most
common, but other varieties of stone were used. In form some of these
objects approach the plummets and are perforated at one end for
suspension; others approximate the cones and hemispheres. Analogous
objects are found on the Pacific Coast, some of which are manifestly
modeled after the native canoe, while others resemble the boat-stones of
the East, although often perforated at one end for suspension.”
[Illustration:
FIG. 359. (S. 1–1.) Phillips Academy collection. This figure shows an
engraved spool in the upper right-hand corner, an L-shaped object
below, and a peculiar slate ornament in which an angular opening has
been cut. Whether the spool-shaped object should be classed with
plummets or in the problematical series, I do not know.
]
Dr. Thomas Wilson had a theory that these boat-stones were made to ward
off evil and that in the hollow of the boat-stone was tied a wooden
effigy of a human being; that boat-stone and effigy were put away for a
certain length of time, and thus the evil was avoided or the influence
of the effigy rendered of no effect.
[Illustration:
FIG. 360. (S. 1–2.) Andover collection. An interesting spool-shaped
object in the centre, a highly ornamental plummet at the left, all
of sandstone; rare slate bead at the right.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 361. (S. 1–1.) From the collection of A. Setterlun, The Dalles,
Oregon.
]
CONCLUSIONS AS TO GORGETS, WINGED OBJECTS, ETC.
In the preceding pages I have had so much to say about supposed use of
problematical forms, that there is little need for lengthy conclusions.
Moreover, in general Conclusions in “The Stone Age,” I shall consider
the meaning of these and other things in more detail.
[Illustration:
FIG. 362. (S. 1–3.) Four beautiful boat-stones from the collection of
B. H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky. All are highly executed and
polished, from various portions of Kentucky. Materials: Greenstone
and banded slate.
]
Many of the tablets or winged objects have been called “shuttles,” and
were supposed to have been used in the weaving of cloth and nets. Other
less sensible uses have been applied to these things.
It has always seemed to me ridiculous to claim that the prehistoric
peoples made use of objects, on which a great deal of time and hard
labor were spent, for ordinary purposes. Last summer when among the
Ojibwa, I made particular inquiries of them regarding the use of various
implements; particularly the small triangular boards, cut in the form of
stone tablets, with which I saw old women weaving nets. They informed me
that they used similar small, flat pieces of wood with concave ends in
olden times.
[Illustration:
FIG. 363. (S. 1–2.) Five ridged gorgets from the Andover collection.
Attention is called to the one with the horn-like elevation.
]
An Indian could make a wooden shuttle in far less time than required to
make one of stone, and if he dropped the wooden shuttle it would not
break. If he dropped a winged stone and it struck any hard substance, it
would be pretty apt to break or at least to be nicked.
Regarding the winged and other forms it is significant that no great
number of these objects are found in the mounds, rather do they occur in
the surface, pretty much anywhere in the Mississippi Valley and the St.
Lawrence basin. In the great mounds of the Ohio Valley and also in the
South, copper objects and pipes are common, the winged specimens in
slate are very rare. My own opinion is that these things are older than
the mounds. The gorgets with raised surfaces, such as Fig. 363, occur
more frequently in the mounds of the Scioto Valley, than other types,
excepting pendants, which are common everywhere. The same is true of the
large squared or rectangular tablets; the double-winged stones are
almost entirely wanting in the mounds and graves.
The beauty and symmetry of these specimens have always appealed to
students of prehistoric art.
It is interesting to note—and one is persuaded that it has a direct
bearing upon the usages to which the aborigines put these objects—that
few of the forms are found accompanying the burials, and that these few
are confined to the pendant shape, the tablet, and the “boat-shaped”—not
hollowed-out. That is, that the “canoe-form” is so seldom found in
interments as to be considered an exception, and that even when found it
is not hollowed-out.
[Illustration:
FIG. 364. (S. 1–2.) Slender bar-amulets. Collection of Albert L.
Addis, Albion, Indiana. These three were found near Albion and are
more slender than most bars.
]
Certain forms are common in stated localities. When one has time to list
all of the “gorget” class now on exhibition in the museums, it will be
possible to deduce further conclusions. Until then, what facts have
already been ascertained must suffice.
Cushing thought that many of these slate and granite gorgets were bases
on which bird-stones and similar effigies were mounted. Formerly I was
inclined to accept Cushing’s views, but as careful study of the soft
slate surfaces fails to reveal scratches, I am not now prepared to
accept his suggestion. Rather let it be said that, if one is to theorize
at all, the more complicated of these gorgets belong to the shamanistic
individuals who were numerous in primitive tribes; that these, adorned
with a variety of feathers and gewgaws, were brought before the lodge or
into the central dance-ground and placed before the shaman, or that they
were carried by him, or worn upon his person.
[Illustration:
FIG. 365. (S. 1–2.) Bar-amulets; Phillips Academy collection, Andover.
These range from base with slightly turned ends to long straight
objects pointed at either end. They are of black slate, perforated
in the bottom like a bird-stone.
]
The fact that so few of these are found in burial-places leads me to
believe that the problematical class was made and used largely in times
previous to the interment of bodies in mounds, graves, or cliff-houses.
That is, they were all very old and did not belong to mound-building
tribes or to those who were buried in graves. Of course, some of them
did, but I am speaking of the average, for a small per cent of them were
found in burial-places. Professor Edward H. Williams, Jr., of Woodstock,
Vermont, examined with great care for me the surfaces of a number of
these problematical forms, testing them from a point of view of
chemistry and mineralogy, to ascertain what elements in the stones
weathered out and what elements remained. In the Conclusions, Volume II,
I present his observations, referring to them by our museum numbers,
instead of by the figure numbers used in “The Stone Age.” His
observations are of great importance in indicating that many of these
stones are old. How old, I do not attempt to say in years, but that the
most of them were made and used long before the Christian era, I firmly
believe.
[Illustration:
FIG. 366. (S. 1–3.) Bar-amulet and four ridged objects, somewhat
different from bar-amulets, but of such forms as could be ranged in
a series, beginning with bar-amulet and ending in a ridged type, or
_vice versa_.
]
There is another point with reference to the problematical class that I
wish to place before readers. If there is anything that denotes peculiar
development here in America on the part of stone-age man—a development
dissimilar to that found anywhere else in the world, it is evinced in
these strange, problematical forms. Here and there one will find a stone
pendant or simple ornament similar to stone pendants elsewhere in the
world. But as a class these things stand aloof as distinctly American.
Compare them with stone objects from any other country in the world, and
you will catch my meaning. They are unique, they are individualistic. I
defy any one to pick a series in Egypt, Europe, Babylonia, or elsewhere
that will type for type compare with them. They constitute a problem in
American archæology. We have seen that on the forearm or chest, or the
hand, or the neck, of skeleton remains some of these are found. But most
of the forms have not been found buried with the dead. The few vague
references to “charm-stones,” and “bull-roarers” are feeble attempts at
explanation. Certainly, we do not know, in the broad sense, what they
meant to stone-age man. To dismiss them with a wave of the hand as
witchcraft stones is likewise a confession to ignorance and of inability
to solve the problem. I find no specific reference among the works of
early writers to their use. Their distribution is not confined to the
territory of the Iroquois, the Creeks, the Delawares, the Eries, or the
Ojibwa. While they are most numerous in the areas occupied by such
tribes, that does not mean that they were used by those same Indians.
[Illustration:
FIG. 368. (S. 1–2.) Two of a series of peculiar pointed type regarding
which I am totally in the dark. Material: black slate and granite.
Phillips Academy collection, Andover. The one to the right has a
groove about the top. There are many of these in all museum
collections, and I am sorry I cannot illustrate a large number of
them. They range from the ordinary ridged form, unperforated, to
long, slender, almost pick-shaped objects. They constitute a study
in themselves. There have been many theories as to drilled and
winged objects, but these pendant-shaped, “coffin”-shaped, and
kindred stones not only defy classification, but there is absolutely
no use to be assigned them. There are no perforations, seldom are
they grooved, and there is no way whereby one might judge for what
purpose they were made use of. Truly the word “problematical”
belongs to them more than to any other type of stone objects.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 367. (S. 1–2.) Peculiar bar-amulet, of which three views are
represented; top, side, and bottom. John Merkel collection,
Bellevue, Iowa. Material: mottled granite.
]
I closed my part of the Bulletin no. 2, on gorgets, Phillips Academy
publication, with the same quotations with which I close this chapter on
“Problematical Forms.” I see no reason to change it, although it applied
to gorgets exclusively:—
“If one were to find Zuñi paraphernalia independent of any association
of Zuñi people, and if the discoverer had no knowledge of the Zuñis, he
could not conceive of the peculiar, not to say incredible, usages to
which Zuñi charms are put. The Zuñis gave up most of their time to
ceremonies. Other native tribes may have done the same.
“In the earlier Jesuit ‘Relations’ the natives are said to have devoted
many days to ceremonies, incantations, etc.,—‘Works of the Devil.’ But
there is no clear and tangible reference, in all of the voluminous
writings of early explorers, to the more complicated gorgets, to the
forms more elaborate than the merely pendant shape. The suggestion
forces itself that these objects were made and used before the Discovery
by Columbus.”