GROUND STONE—PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
THE SPUD-SHAPED IMPLEMENT
Contrary to many of the preceding classes of ancient artifacts, we have
two excellent modern authorities on the stone spud-shaped implement. To
begin with, permit me to register a protest against the word
“spud”—which is suggestive of a heavy iron implement in the hands of a
laborer. It is to be supposed that the word “spud” is retained because
no one has proposed a good substitute.
In the _Wisconsin Archeologist_[41] Mr. Charles E. Brown published a
paper describing the spud. This could in no wise be improved upon, and
with the omission of some local specimens he has cited, I quote most of
his article. His figure numbers have been changed to suit my figures,
and a few paragraphs at the end are not included:
“The class, or more properly, classes of stone implements of which a
consideration is attempted in the following pages, have been variously
referred to in our archæological literature as spuds, hoe, spade and
paddle-shaped implements and spade ceremonials and by other names
equally indefinite and undesirable, and the only explanation which can
be offered for the adoption of the present title is, that though not
entirely satisfactory, it has nevertheless the advantage of being the
one by which these varied, peculiar, and interesting objects are now
most familiarly known to the archæologists and collectors of our own
state and of the country at large.
“It is apparent that the term ‘spud,’ as at present employed, is being
used to define and include within its scope at least two classes of
stone implements, which, though they resemble each other in a general
way, were, if we may judge by the difference in condition, workmanship,
and general adaptability, intended for and undoubtedly served quite
distinct purposes.
“Save that presented by Fowke, which embraces only such forms as are
represented in the United States National Museum and does not include
the Western form, no regular classification of these implements appears
to have been attempted. In a like manner, nearly all of the published
descriptions of various authors relate only to Southern and Southeastern
forms and but little or no effort appears to have been made to assemble
the data or compare them with others.
“Such being the case, a re-classification or re-consideration of all of
the known types, is both timely and necessary.
[Illustration:
FIG. 369. (S. 1–2.) Two beautiful black slate ornaments from Fulton
County, Kentucky. The one to the left is almost spudlike in
character, but is too slender to be considered a true spud.
Ornaments of this form are very rare and doubtless represent
individual fancy, as do many of these things. Collection of B. H.
Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]
“In the following convenient classification which is based upon a rather
exhaustive study of the available specimens and literature, the writer
has attempted to explain to his brother students what are the
differences both in form and probable mode of application of the several
classes of these implements. This he has supplemented with extracts from
the published descriptions, notes, suggestions, and theories advanced by
leading archæologists and with such additional data as he has himself
been able to collect.
“Those who have undertaken similar studies will appreciate the
difficulties with which he has had to contend. It is therefore
unnecessary to recall them here. The rather broad divisions proposed may
hardly be found to include all of the known forms, yet the
classification is probably as good as any that can be devised in the
present and as yet limited state of our knowledge. The author desires to
acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. J. F. Snyder, Mr. Harlan I. Smith,
Prof. T. H. Lewis, Prof. W. K. Moorehead, Hon. J. V. Brower, Rev. James
Savage, Rev. E. C. Mitchell, and others for suggestions and data
received and to his brother students in various parts of Wisconsin for
the loan of material from their collections.
_Classification_
“In the first of these classes may be included implements answering the
following description:—
“Class A, see Fig. 376. Blade broad, of a semi-circular,
semi-elliptical, or somewhat hexagonal or triangular shape, flat or
slightly convex, thickest near the handle and ground down to a dull
rounded or fairly thin edge in front; shoulders square or sloping, in
some cases rounded or barbed; handle generally long, tapering to a blunt
point, and usually circular or elliptical in section. Some examples have
the edge of the blade near the shoulder ornamented with incisions or
deep notches and others also have incisions at the extremity of the
handle. These implements are as a class graceful and beautiful objects
and represent a high type of aboriginal stone art. They are usually
wrought of hard primitive rock and are generally highly polished. Nearly
all are of large size, the largest known example measuring 22 3–4 inches
in length. Of their distribution Mr. Clarence B. Moore says: ‘Unlike so
many of our aboriginal relics, this implement is of a type unknown in
Europe. It is comparatively rare, though of wide distribution in the
United States.’
[Illustration:
FIG. 370. (S. about 1–2.) Collection of L. B. Ogden, Penn Yan, New
York. At the bottom is a long slender ornament with slightly
spade-like ends. At the left is the hoe-shaped implement which may
be said to belong to the spud class.
]
“As the greater number of the known examples have been obtained in the
Southern and Southeastern United States, that is generally considered to
be the natural habitat of this class of stone artifacts. Specimens have
been procured in districts as far north as Canada, but there is every
reason to believe that these have been brought from some distant
Southern or Southeastern locality in the course of aboriginal trade or
war relations. It is this class of spade, or paddle-shaped spud, which
we find most frequently described and figured in our archæological
literature, and which in their endeavors to understand its precise
office has cost so much trouble to our leading archæologists. Some idea
of the several theories and suggestions thus advanced may be gleaned
from the following extracts:—
“Dr. Charles Rau, in a chapter devoted to a consideration of ‘Scraper
and Spade-like Implements,’ figures one and describes another of these
implements. He speaks of their resemblance to diminutive spades, but
does not assert that they were so employed. One of these in the
collection of Dr. Joseph Jones, now in the University of Louisiana at
New Orleans, was taken from a grave mound at Old Town, Tennessee. It is
made of greenstone and is 17 1–2 inches in length. The other specimen is
from South Carolina.
“Colonel C. C. Jones also describes and figures the Jones spud, and
adds: ‘We suppose this to have been an agricultural tool.’
“Gerard Fowke describes and figures a specimen fashioned of chloritic
slate, from Prairie County, Arkansas. His remarks are intended to apply
to both this and the perforated class of spuds. He says: ‘They are,
usually, of a comparatively soft material, carefully worked and
polished, and bear no marks of rough usage. On the other hand, they are
too large for ornament. Perhaps their office may have been in some
ceremony or game.’ He states that old residents of the Shenandoah Valley
claimed that the last century Indians of that locality used implements
of similar pattern for removing the bark from trees.
“General Gates P. Thruston figures three of these implements, including
a very handsome specimen in his own collection which was found in the
stone grave settlement near Nashville, Tennessee. He says of them: ‘As
no other more practical use has been suggested as to them, we call them
ceremonial spades or maces.’ He also describes two others, ‘one 15 3–4
inches long and the other a delicate little type 5 1–2 inches in
length,’ and concludes his description with the following statement:
‘These implements are too dull for cutting purposes and must have been
too valuable for use as ordinary agricultural or mechanical tools.’
“Mr. Clarence B. Moore figures several fine specimens in the magnificent
reports of his explorations. One of these, 14 inches in length, is made
of sassurite and was taken from the Shields mound in Duval County,
Florida. Another of polished claystone and 11 inches in length was
procured from Mt. Royal (mound) in Putnam County, Florida. The same
author credits Thomas Wilson, Esq., for a report of two of these
implements, one of blue trap rock, highly polished, found near Columbia,
South Carolina, and the other from Kentucky.
“He quotes Dr. Joseph Jones, who says: ‘Several conjectures have been
formed as to the use of these singular implements. Some have supposed
them to have been used in agriculture, the flat head being employed as a
spade and the round handle for making small holes in the earth for the
deposit of Indian corn; others believe that they were used to strip bark
from trees; others again, that they were used in dressing hides, in
excavating caves, or in felling trees after the wood has been charred by
fire. It is possible that they may have been used for all these purposes
and also as warlike weapons, since it would be easy to cleave or
fracture the human skull with a single blow from one of these stone
implements.’
[Illustration:
FIG. 371. (S. 1–3.) Two beautiful hoe- or spud-shaped objects from B.
H. Young’s collection. The one to the left is made of greenstone,
that to the right of cannel coal. Cumberland Valley, Kentucky.
]
“Mr. Moore concludes his remarks as follows: ‘Mr. Thruston reports a
number of these implements from various parts of Tennessee, and rightly,
we think, classes them as ceremonial. We consider them of too infrequent
occurrence to suggest their employment for any practical use. We have
been able to learn of none showing breakage or signs of use and some are
too small in size to render them useful as weapons. Moreover the
tally-marks on certain specimens connect them with the ceremonial
class.’
“In closing this chapter the author desires to present the following
conclusions and remarks which, though at variance with much that has
been written concerning the purpose of this class of implements, are, he
believes, worthy of consideration:—
[Illustration:
FIG. 372. (S. about 1–6.) Wisconsin Archæological Society collection.
]
“He is convinced that further researches in the field and examination of
the thousands of public and private collections of our country will show
that these implements are of more frequent occurrence than we entertain
any idea of at present. The very considerable amount of additional data
which he has been able to collect in his own and adjoining states would
indicate as much.
“Contrary to what has been supposed some broken and mutilated specimens
have been found.
“Such specimens as have come to his notice and which he has been able to
examine were generally so substantially fashioned and their blades so
edged as to suggest their employment for a practical purpose, though
possibly not for all or any of those which have been suggested.
[Illustration:
FIG. 373. (S. 1–2.) Black stone spud ceremonial. From Kyle mound, near
Columbus, Georgia. Collection of H. M. Whelpley, St. Louis,
Missouri.
]
[Illustration:
FIG. 374. (S. 2–3.) Collection of C. B. Moore. Ceremonial axe of
stone. Mound C, Black Warrior River, Alabama. Plutonic rock.
]
“The presence of notches or incisions upon the blades and handles of
some examples does not imply a relationship with objects of the
so-called ‘ceremonial class,’ any more than do the flutings upon the
polls and blades of a fairly numerous class of Wisconsin grooved stone
axes, which, notwithstanding their often artistic ornamentation, are of
equal value for service and present the same evidence of hard usage that
other stone axes have received.
“Class B. See Fig. 372. Blade generally short, crescent-shaped or oval,
convex or flat, reduced to a sharp cutting edge, shoulder when present
also partially edged; handle generally of short or medium size, of
nearly uniform width, circular, elliptical, less frequently square or
somewhat rectangular in section.
“Diorite, diabase, and granite appear to have been most employed in the
making of these implements. Specimens made of slate, sandstone, and
other materials are known.
“They are usually quite smooth and polished. The sides of the handle are
frequently pecked or left unpolished as if to afford a better grip for
the hand. The notches and incisions which characterize many specimens of
the former class are absent in this. There is a well-marked tendency in
some of the smaller types toward celt forms.
“The blades of a majority of these implements exhibit nicks and
fractures and other unmistakable signs of use. Broken specimens are
common and there can be no doubt of their having been employed by the
aborigines for one or more useful purposes.
“Dr. J. F. Snyder, who is well acquainted with these implements, says of
them: ‘These indigenous specimens were evidently tools in common use. It
is readily to be seen that they were serviceable appliances for
stripping the bark from trees, for skinning large animals, for dressing
hides, and a variety of domestic purposes.’
“Honorable J. V. Brower of St. Paul, who has spent fifty years in
studying the habits and customs of the Northwestern Indian tribes at
their camping-grounds, and whose work in the archæological field is well
known, says:—
“‘They were most likely used in the process of making canoes from
burned-out logs.’ He has not found them in Kansas, where ‘boat tools
were very scarce, simply because they used bull-boats instead of log
canoes.’
[Illustration:
FIG. 375. (S. 1–4.) Collection of J. R. Lovejoy, Schenectady, New
York. Small groove near small end. Sixteen notches are upon the more
perfect surface. Dark greenish stone, smooth as satin.
]
“This, then, is the form of stone implement which has come to be
designated by the name of ‘spud’ by Western archæologists and of which
curiously enough little or nothing has been written.
“The majority of the implements illustrated and described in this
article as Wisconsin types, belong to this class. Dr. Snyder and others
have informed me of the occurrence of these implements in Illinois,
Honorable J. V. Brower, Professor T. H. Lewis, Reverend E. C. Mitchell,
and others, of their being found in various localities in Minnesota and
North and South Dakota. The writer has seen specimens from Ohio,
Michigan, and Iowa. It is quite probable that further research will show
them to be quite common in nearly all of these states.
“In the Terry collection, in the American Museum of Natural History,
there is an example (T. 2011) of this type. It is of limestone and comes
from Charleston, Missouri. Mr. H. P. Hamilton has a specimen which was
found near El Paso, Texas.
“Class C. Broad flattish implements, generally of comparatively small
size. (See Figs. 371 and 373.)
“Blade broad, nearly circular, elliptical or semi-elliptical in shape,
edge fairly thick and smooth, or thin and sharp, shoulders rounded or
sharply pointed; handle narrower than the blade, flat or convex, sides
straight or curved, parallel or slightly tapering to the top.
“Some specimens have the handle perforated, as if it were intended to
attach them to the person by means of a thong passed through the hole.
It is quite probable that some of these, and of the finer unperforated
forms as well, are, as has already been suggested, deserving of being
classed with the stone ornaments known as gorgets. Their generally small
size, soft material, shape, finish, and the condition of their edges,
would appear to make such a separation desirable and proper.
“In the making of others, greenstone and other hard rocks have been
employed. Many of these are roughly made and have quite sharp cutting
edges. There is a tendency on the part of some of these toward a scraper
form, and it is quite likely that they were utilized for such or a
similar domestic purpose.
“There appears to be but little reason for associating any of these
implements with the large paddle-form (Class A), as some writers have
done. Some examples might be included with the former class (B) as
medium types.
“Implements of this class are said to be of fairly common occurrence in
the South and specimens are to be seen in various public and private
collections, and have been described by various authors from Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and
Florida. The writer has sketches of several specimens which were found
in Ohio.
“Mr. W. H. Ellsworth formerly possessed two specimens of this class, one
made of slate and the other of red sandstone, which were found near
Stafford, Tolland County, Connecticut.”
Mr. Clarence B. Moore, who has conducted extensive explorations in
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, etc., is an authority on
archæology in the South. After Mr. Brown’s paper appeared, Mr. Moore
wrote an article for the _American Anthropologist_ (July-September,
1903, p. 498), in which is contained much additional and valuable
information. I quote certain portions of it:—
[Illustration:
FIG. 376. (S. 1–3.) Seven spud-shaped objects of slate and greenstone.
These range from 3 1–8 to 17 1–4 inches. All are from sites along
the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers in southwestern Kentucky.
Collection of Bennett H. Young, Louisville, Kentucky.
]
“As I have found, in place, in Florida, in Georgia, and in Alabama, a
considerable number of what have been called ‘hoe-shaped implements’
(Mr. Brown’s ‘Class C,’ among spuds, though he differentiates their uses
from those of the other two classes), I have thought a description of
these ‘implements’ found by me might be of interest.
“Three of these ‘implements,’ all beautifully made of hard stone, all
with perforations, came from a mound on the ‘Charlotte Thompson place,’
near Montgomery, Alabama. One of these specimens clearly bears the marks
left by a handle. The shank has projected beyond the handle on one side;
on the other side the line of the handle passes across the top of the
perforation. Another ‘implement’ has similar traces of a handle which
are less distinctly marked.
* * * * *
“An interesting feature is that marks made by a drill, probably a reed,
since the nucleus of a core is apparent, are plainly visible on the
implement. Seemingly the endeavor to perforate the shank was abandoned
after several attempts. The line left by one side of the handle is just
above where the perforation was to have been.”
* * * * *
From the twelve specimens found by Mr. C. B. Moore in his explorations
he draws conclusions as follows:—
“From the soft character of the stones from which some of these
‘implements’ are made, it would not seem that they were intended for
active use.
“As some are not pierced, and as others have the hole too low on the
shank to allow graceful suspension, it does not seem likely that these
objects were used as ornaments or that the hole was intended for
attachment to the person.
“Inasmuch as on some of these, marks left by a handle are plainly
discernible, probably all were used with handles, some of which left no
trace. On certain ‘celts’ also one plainly sees where handles have been,
but more frequently no marks are apparent.
“Presumably, then, the ‘hoe-shaped implement’ was an axe and, as it was
not intended for active use, it was a ceremonial axe, as I have
maintained in previous writings; and the hole, when it existed, was to
lash the blade more firmly to the handle. Perhaps, where the hole is not
present, the blade was used without one, since the hole is not
indispensable; or just as likely an unfinished object was buried with
the dead. The discovery of cases of this kind abound in mound work.”