S iJ tl
STONE ORNAMENTS
USED BY INDIANS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
BEING A DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN CHARM STONES,
GORGETS, TUBES, BIRD STONES AND
PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
BY
WARREN K. MOOREHEAD
AUTHOR OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN IN THE UNITED STATES- PERIOD 1850-1914; THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA; ETC.
WITH CHAPTERS BY ARTHUR C. PARKER, ESQUIRE,
AND
PROFESSOR EDWARD H. WILLIAMS, JR.
1917 THE ANDOVER PRESS
AND OVER, MASS.
COPYRIGHT 1917 BY WARREN K. MOOREHEAD
TAKEN FROM PLATE 10, JOURN. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILA., 2nd SER., VOL. XVI
Kindness of Clarence B Maori; b>q.
FIG. 1. (S. 1-1.) Problematical forms found by Mr. Moore with burials at Indian Knoll, Kentucky. (See page 237). A, chalcedony, skeleton 163. B, banded clay stone, skeleton 161. C, granite, skeleton 115. D, Silicous rock, skeleton 67.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I. THE NEED OF STUDY OF ORNAMENTAL AND PROBLEMATICAL FORMS .... 16
II. How THIS VOLUME WAS PREPARED . ^ -. . . . . ... ...... . 22
III. THE CLASSIFICATION OF ORNAMENTAL-PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 28
IV. MANUFACTURE OF ORNAMENTAL AND PROBLEMATICAL FORMS 35
V. THE OVATE OR PRIMARY ORNAMENTS 46
VI. THE GORGETS 55
VII. THE RIDGED AND EXPANDED GORGETS 66
VIII. BAR-SHAPED STONES. BOAT-SHAPED STONES 71
IX. THE BIRD-STONES 81
X. LUNATE FORMS AND PICK-SHAPED STONES 100
XI. BlPENNATE OR WlNGED STONES HO
XII. BILUNATE FORMS 124
XIII. TUBES . - 130
XIV. SPATULATE FORMS 140
XV. PLUMMET-SHAPED STONES 157
XVI. PROBLEMATICAL POLISHED SLATE IMPLEMENTS AND ALLIED FORMS FROM
NEW YORK 170
XVII. STATE CULTURE IN NEW YORK (Continued) 179
XVIII. BIRD-SHAPED STONES, BAR-SHAPED STONES AND GORGETS FROM NEW YORK . . 196
XIX. GENIGULATE FORMS 226
XX. MOUND FINDS 230
XXI. THE USE OF ORNAMENTS BY THE AMERICAN INDIAN 246
XXII. REMARKS UPON THE MAPS AND OUTLINES 262
XXIII. GENERAL TABLES SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF ORNAMENTAL-PROBLEMATICAL
FORMS 270
XXIV. SOME SPECIAL TABLES 333
XXV. THE QUESTION OF PATINA OH AGE 338
XXVI. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS 350
XXVII. DR. G. B. GORDON ON THE BANNER-STONE 367
XXVIII. UNIQUE FORMS AND FRAUDULENT SPECIMENS 382
XXIX. GENERAL REMARKS AND OBSERVATIONS 392
XXX. CONCLUSIONS. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FORMS AND THE THEORY THAT THEY
SPREAD FROM A CENTRAL AREA 399
XXXI. CONCLUSIONS (continued). SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHY ORNAMENTAL- PROBLEMATICAL STONES ARE IN A RESTRICTED AREA 408
XXXII. CONCLUSIONS (continued). AUTHOR'S THEORY AS TO WINGED STONES . . . 421
XXXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY /. 427
INDEX . . 444
FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study attempted in the following pages has been sufficiently explained elsewhere and it is scarcely necessary to make any prefatory remarks. The author has spent his spare time for many years in the study of the unknown or problematical forms made and used by prehistoric man, and this volume is offered as a result of such labors. That it cannot be complete, and may quite likely not be entirely accepted by other observers, goes without saying. The study of prehistoric archaeology in the United States is beset by many difficulties and there are certain problems which do not appear in other countries. The author begs the indulgence of his readers. Everything considered, the relation of ornamental stones to the everyday life of the Indian is a complex subject, and one which may be approached from many angles.
Denied the hearty co-operation of the many individuals and institu- tions thanked in the following pages, such a book would be impossible. It has been difficult to determine how much of the material prepared by bthers should be included. The space between the covers of several volumes might be well employed in presenting the wealth of material submitted. It is quite possible for one to write an entire volume on any one of the thirty- six types and their variations.
I am especially indebted to Arthur C. Parker, Esq., for preparing the chapters upon the ornamental-problematical stones found in the State of New York, and also to Professor Edward H. Williams, Jr., and Professor Benjamin L. Miller, for their careful analysis and painstaking study of the problem of patina and weathering. Clarence B. Moore, Esq., has my thanks for sending the advance sheets of his volume, Some Aboriginal Sites on Green River, Kentucky, and permission to use certain figures in two of his colored plates. Professor Harlan I. Smith of the Museum of the Geological Survey, Ottawa, Canada, and his assistant, Mr. W. J. Wintem- berg, made for me one hundred or more outlines of the types on exhibi- tion in the Ottawa Museum. I am very grateful for all that they did. George G. Heye, Esq., founder of the Museum of the American Indian, New York, very kindly permitted Alanson B. Skinner, Esq., to outline most of the forms available in that Institution, and I herewith thank them. Willard E. Yager, Esq., photographed many of the objects in his large and interesting collection of southern New York, and has my thanks. In addition to these gentlemen there are many others to whom I am indebted, especially Mr. E. P. Upham of the Smithsonian Institution; Dr. George B. Gordon, University of Pennsylvania Museum; L. W. Jenkins, Esq., Peabody Museum of Salem, Massachusetts; Charles E. Brown, Curator of the Wisconsin
10 STONE ORNAMENTS
Historical Society; American Museum of Natural History; Miss H. Newell Wardle, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; C. C. Willoughby,Esq., Director of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts; Dr. A. G. Rogers, Parker, Indiana; H. E. Buck, Esq., Delaware, Ohio; Christopher Wren, Curator of the Wyoming Historical Society, Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania; Paul S. Tooker, Westfield, New Jersey; H. E. Cole, Baraboo, Wisconsin. Professor W. O. Emery of Washington has accumulated a large collection during the past thirty years and wrote me a description, together with some observations on weathering and patina. Professor W. C. Mills of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society and the Ohio State University Museum, also enumerated all of the objects in that large collection and took photographs of many. There were many others who should be thanked individually, but space forbids mentioning in detail the kind assistance rendered by each one. I, therefore, present the following list and desire to thank all of them most sincerely.
Addis, Albert L., Albion, Indiana
Akeroyd, W. J. R., Dresden, Ohio
Alexander, W. M., Louisville, New York
Aldridge, D. M., Vestal, New York
Amos, Ira B., Bushnell, Illinois
Anderson, A. E., Brownsville, Texas
Anderson, Rev. Joseph, Waterbury, Connecticut
Arthur, John J., Topeka, Kansas
Auringer, O. A., Glens Falls, New York
Baatz, C. L., Massillon, Ohio
Baer, John L., Delta, Pennsylvania
Bailey, Erskine E., Little Rapids, Wisconsin
Ballard, E. R., Winona, Mississippi
Banser, W. H., Honeoye Falls, N. Y.
Barbour, Erwin H., University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
Barrett, S. A., Curator, Public Museum of City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Bartlett, Dr. W. E., Belle Plaine, Kansas
Bates, Albert C., Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut
Beasley, B., Montgomery, Alabama
Beauchamp, Rev. William, Syracuse, New York
Beesen, L. H., Niles, Michigan
Ballamy, N. R., Wellsville, New York
Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin
Bisel, Willard, Charlotte, Michigan
Bishop, Townsend L., Portlandville, New York
Blackie, Rev. William R., New York City
Bodfish, W. P., New York City
Bosworth, William L., Amenia, New York
Boas, Franz, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York
Braecklein, J. J., Kansas City, Missouri
Braun, H. M., East St. Louis, Illinois
Branegan, James A., Millbourne, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Brannon, Peter A., Montgomery, Alabama
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11
Brewster, Daniel O., Assistant Curator, Massachusetts Normal Art School, Boston.
Massachusetts
Brooking, A. M., Curator, Museum, Hastings College, Inland, Nebraska Broughton, C. G., Marblehead, Massachusetts Brown, Lovell, Piqua, Ohio Brown, Monroe N., Hershey, Pennsylvania Bryan, W. E., Elmira, New York Buck, H. E., Delaware, Ohio
Buck, Solon J., Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota Buell, Ira M., Curator, Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences Burkett, H. F., Findlay, Ohio
Burroughs, Clyde H., Detroit Museum of Art, Detroit, Michigan Cairns, George, Centralia, Illinois Camp, Mrs. Martha C., Beebe, Arkansas Carpenter, Walter S., New London, Ohio Carter, Dr. Albert, Murphysboro, Illinois Carter, John H., Milton, Pennsylvania Case, L. V., Tarry town, New York Cawley, James S., Somerville, New Jersey Chambers, Sprague M., Plainwell, Michigan Chandler, George P., Knoxville, Tennessee Chapman, W. R., Remington, Virginia Clark, T. C., Brilliant, Ohio Clendenin, W. F., Sparta, Illinois Cobb, B. F., Jr., Atlanta, Georgia Coffin, C. C., Bridgeport, Connecticut Cole, H. E., Baraboo, Wisconsin Coleman, Fred E., Pasadena, California Coleman, G. P., Williamsburg, Virginia Collie, Prof. G. L., Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin Cottlow, Dr. B. A., Oregon, Illinois Craig, T. F., Velpen, Indiana Cressey, J. N., Harpursville, New York Cromley, C. E., Williamsport, Pennsylvania Crozier, Archibald, Wilmington, Delaware Cummins, Dr. Wycoff, Belvidere, New Jersey Davis, R. N., Curator, Everhart Museum, Scranton, Pennsylvania Dauphin County Historical Society Davis, Willard H., Lowell, Ohio Dean, F. C., Ripley, New York Deisher, H. K., Kutztown, Pennsylvania Dewey, Alvin H., Rochester, New York Dodge, R. E., Santa Cruz, California Donehoo, George P., Coudersport, Pennsylvania Edinger, Joseph, Hillsdale, Michigan Elchert, Albinus A., New Riegel, Ohio Emerson, Ralph W., Bridgeton, New Jersey Esselborn, Paul, Portsmouth, Ohio Falge, Dr. Louis, Manitowoc, Wisconsin Felton, Don Reid, Muncie, Indiana Fenton, W. T., Conewango Valley, New York
12 STONE ORNAMENTS
Figgins, J. D., Colorado Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado
Finger, Frank, Marissa, Illinois
Fish, F. S., Farrell, Pennsylvania
Fletcher, Emily, Westford, Massachusetts
Floor, Dr. J. M., Petersburg, Ohio
Forney, J. M., Birds Run, Ohio
Fox, George R., Curator Museum Nebraska State Historical Society
Francis, C. E., Elkhart, Indiana
Gabriel, Fred C., South Bend, Indiana
Gage, D. S., Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri
Gage, George S., Lawrence, Massachusetts
Gearhart, Rev. E. M., Indiana, Pennsylvania
Gerend, A., Cato, Wisconsin
Gibbs, H. N.| West Barrington, Rhode Island
Gifford, E. W., Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley,
California
Gill, Mrs. Mary W., Washington, District of Columbia Gilliland, Dr. A. B., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Gilmore, E. L., Curator, Maine Historical Society, Portland, Maine Gimbi, A. W., McAdoo, Pennsylvania
Glenk, Robert, Curator, Louisiana State Museum, New Orleans, Louisiana Godfrey, Fred M., Oldtown, Maine Goldsborough, E. Ralston, Frederick, Maryland Graves, Dr. E. E., Penacook, New Hampshire Gray, William H., Columbus, Georgia Haberer, C. H., Dunnon, Kentucky
Hall, F. S., Curator, State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Hall, Inez, Meadville, Pennsylvania
Harlan, E. R., Curator, Historical Department of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa Harrington, J. P., School of American Archaeology, Museum of New Mexico,
Santa Fe, New Mexico Harris, Charles S., Bardolph, 111. Harris, L. O., Lebanon, Ohio Hassler, E. F., Byrdstown, Tennessee Hayes, Oscar W., Allerton, 111. Heacock, E. G., Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Henderson, Junius, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado Hepp, Charles E., Boonville, Indiana Hermann, R., Dubuque, Iowa Hess, Asher L., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hewett, Edgar L., School of American Archaeology, Museum of New Mexico,
Santa Fe, New Mexico Hill, Marshall G., Afton, New York Hill, O. C., Waterbury, Connecticut Hills, F. P., Delaware, Ohio Hills, Leslie W., Fort Wayne, Indiana Hine, Charles A., Akron, Ohio Hole, Allen D., Curator, Department of Geology, Earlham College, Richmond,
Indiana
Holmes, W. A., Chicago, Illinois Hope, C., Sedalia, Missouri Hostetter, Karl M., Minerva, Ohio
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IS
Rowland, H. R., Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Buffalo, New York
Hughes, F. M., Lakeville, Ohio
Hurlbutt, H. S., Libertyville, Illinois
Humphreys, J. A., Birmingham, Alabama
Jackson, Charles, Jetmore, Kansas
Jackson, J. W., Belchertown, Massachusetts
Johnson, H. L., Clarksville, Tennessee
Kennedy, W. H., Losantville, Indiana
Keniston, J. A., Newburyport, Massachusetts
Kimball, H. J., Richmond, Illinois
Kobert, Charles, Lebanon, Kentucky
Kroeber, A. L., Department of Anthropology, University of California, California
Laidacker, J. G., Mocanaqua, Pennsylvania
Laidlaw, G. E., The Fort Ranch, Victoria Road, Ontario, Canada
Lang, Percy, Waverly, New York
Lange, William F., Harpursville, New York
Langridge, Clyde, Albion, Michigan
Lawson, B. H., Mattoon, Illinois
Leach, R., Kansas ville, Wisconsin
Lenz, Charles, Cuero, Texas
Lett, R. C., Winnipeg, Manitoba
Lewis, J. B., Petaluma, California
Lewis, Walter P., Phillipsburg, New Jersey
Little, George, Xenia, Ohio
Link, H. A., Waterloo, Indiana
Loeb, Julius, Oakland, California
Lovejoy, J. R., Schenectady, New York
Lowe, Frank H., Chicago, Illinois
Lowe, F. H., Port Byron, New York
Lowe, William A., Massillon, Ohio
MacCurdy, Dr. George A., Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
MacLellan, C. B., New Haven, Connecticut
MacMurray, Mrs. H. V. A., Washington, District of Columbia
Manktelow, Charles W., Cadillac, Michigan
Martin, Dudley, A., Duboistown, Pennsylvania
Marye, William, Upper Falls, Maryland
Matchett, W. F., Pierceton, Indiana
Mathis, C. A., Greenwood, Nebraska
Mattatuck Historical Society, Waterbury, Connecticut
Mattern, J. E., West Rush, New York
McCauliss, N. C., Rockville, Indiana
Mclntosh, H. T., Albany, Georgia
Mclntosh, William, Curator, Natural History Society of New Brunswick, St. John,
New Brunswick
McLain, J. E., Bluffton, Indiana McQuiston, H. A., Camden, Ohio McQuown, S. B., Monmouth, Illinois Merkel, John, Bellevue, Iowa Metzger, J. F., Bridgeport, Connecticut Miller, Raymond E., Worcester, Massachusetts Mitchell, I. McGirk, St. Louis, Missouri Moore, Clarence B., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
14 STONE ORNAMENTS
Moore, G. R., Janesville, Wisconsin
Montgomery, Henry, Toronto, Canada
Morris, G. E., Somerville, New Jersey
Morrison, Charles E., Williamston, Michigan
Murray, Mrs. Louise W., Athens, Pennsylvania
Myer, W. E., Carthage, Tennessee
Neiss, Walter E., Lehighton, Pennsylvania
Nichols, Percy G., Aitkin, Minnesota
Noe, C. F., Amana, Iowa
North, C. A., Middlefield, New York
O'Brien, Henry L., Brooklyn, New York
Ogden, L. B., Penn Yan, New York
Ogle, Seldon K., Klamath Falls, Oregon
Orr, Ellison, Waukon, Iowa
Overstreet, J. T., Elmwood, Tennessee
Owen, Thomas M., Director, State of Alabama, Department of Archives and History
Parker, S. S., Farmington, New Hampshire
Pastle, J. M., DeKalb, Illinois
Payne, E. W., Springfield, Illinois
Pearsall, L. M., New York, New York
Pelton, George A., Somers, Connecticut
Pepper, Geo. H., Museum of the American Indian, New York
Perkins, Dr. E. L., Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Perkins, George H., Burlington, Vermont
Persell, George A., Jamestown, New York
Pettit, R. Fred, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Phillips, John W., Hailey, Missouri
Pritchard, A. L., Fremont, Ohio
Provincial Museum, Ontario, Canada
Pugsley, F. W., Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Purchase, A. S., Syracuse, New York
Racey, G. W., Shawanee, Tennessee
Rauge, C. E., Tampa, Florida
Rayner, J. A., Piqua, Ohio
Reagan, W. J., Paterson, New Jersey
Renno, E. Lee, St. Charles, Missouri
Riebel, Alexander C., Arbela, Missouri
Rieder, F. S., Mt. Vernon, Oregon
Robertson, James D., Holly, Michigan
Robinson, C. H., Normal, Illinois
Robinson, Ira W., Clayton, Michigan
Robinson, V. V., Schuyler, Nebraska
Rogers, Mrs. E., Bleidt, Kentucky
Rogers, Dr. A. G., Parker, Indiana
Sapir, E., Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Ottawa, Canada
Savage, Rev. James, Detroit, Michigan
Saville, Prof. M. H., Museum of the American Indian, New York
Sauermann, George J., Crown Point, Indiana
Saunders, J. W., Camden, Tennessee
Schlegel, J. W., Reading, Pennsylvania
See, Jay, Dimondale, Michigan
Seever, William J., St. Louis, Missouri
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 15
Setterlun, A., The Dalles, Oregon Sherman, H. S., Milwaukee, Wisconsin Shoemaker, Ernest, Brooklyn, New York Shoemaker, L. D., Elmira, New York Shultz, H. F., Chicago, Illinois Slaughter, Edna, Crystal Run, New York
Smith, Eugene A., Geological Survey of Alabama, University of Alabama Speck, Frank E., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania State Museum, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Stengel, F. A., Marion, Ohio Stewart, T. B., Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
Stone, Witmer, Curator, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania Story, C. E., Augusta, Georgia Sugden, E. O., Orland, Maine Taylor, J. D., Bristol, Tennessee Test, Erastus, Lafayette, Indiana Thacker, W. H., Arlington, Washington
Thoburn, J. B., University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Thompson, C. A., Hillsdale, Michigan Thompson, F. P., Dayton, Ohio
Titus, W. A., University of Wisconsin, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin Tonsfeldt, J. P., White Salmon, Washington Tooker, Paul S., Westfield, New Jersey Tuttle, F. May, Osage, Iowa Urban, Theodore L., Columbia, Pennsylvania Upham, E. P., Smithsonian Institution Valentine, F. B., Ridgeley, West Virginia Van Devir, F. M., Medina, Ohio Van Rensselaer, Stephen, Newark, New Jersey Wadsworth, Henry, Glencoe, Minnesota Wainwright, Capt. R. D., Roanoke, Virginia Ward's Natural History Establishment, Rochester, New York Warkentein, H. F., Kansas City, Missouri Waters, William L., Godfrey, Illinois Webb, Walter F., Rochester, New York Weills, Isaac M., Vero, Florida Weiss, Walter E., Lehighton, Pennsylvania West, George A., Milwaukee, Wisconsin Wheeler, Rev. H. E., Jonesboro, Arkansas Whelpley, Dr. H. M., St. Louis, Missouri Whitney, Leander. Cornwall Bridge, Connecticut Whitney, W. R., Schenectady, New York Wilkinson, William, Fountaintown, Indiana Wise, B. E., Jones ville, Michigan
Wisconsin State Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin Wissler, Dr. Clark, American Museum of Natural History, New York Wood, Kenneth P., Wyncote, Pennsylvania Wren, Christopher, Plymouth, Pennsylvania Wyoming Historical Society, Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania Zubke, Herman, Thiensville, Wisconsin Zumstein, J. H., Rock Island, Texas
CHAPTER I. THE NEED OF STUDY OF ORNAMENTAL AND PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
Scattered throughout the United States and Canada are many peculiar ornamental and problematical forms in stone made and used by our aborigines. Because students of American Indian life have been unable to interpret the uses to which these were put, and further on account of the apparent value attached to such objects by the native Americans, they have been the subject of much speculation. In most cases these stone ornaments, charms, amulets and unknown forms are wrought from stones more or less brightly colored, banded or susceptible of a high polish. In this respect the contrast between the ornamental class and the utility or service tools of everyday life is quite marked. Notwithstanding the wide- spread distribution of this class of stone artifacts and although there have been numerous brief references to them, yet no one has devoted a volume to their study, description and classification, that is, to all of them.
As the ornamental and problematical class occur in considerable numbers with burials, in mounds and graves, and since they frequently are found unassociated with more ordinary forms of Indian tools, they have come to be regarded as representing the higher level of stone age art. Stone age man in the United States and Canada possessed no metal, that is, although he used copper, he treated it as a malleable stone, and was therefore different from other primitive nations, who had discovered the use of metal. An effigy pipe sculptured in high relief, or the artistic pottery found in the cliff houses of the Southwest may be said to represent the culmination of stone age art. Outside of these two divisions of prehistoric artifacts, the problematical forms, ornamental and charm stones should be placed as representing the highest attainment of art in stone on the part of our aborigines. In certain sections of the United States and Canada, the Indian had reached an advanced plane in the neolithic culture, and it would have been but a step to that higher plane — the use of metal.
In the large museums there are hundreds of pendants, charm stones, ornaments, and many polished stones labeled "ceremonials", banner- stones, which are the result of accumulation of years. Most of them were found on the surface of camp sites and others have been taken from various mounds and graves. It is no reflection on the curators of museums to say that in their present state, these many objects are of little use to anyone. Certainly their educational value is practically nil. All of which is due to the fact that we have devoted our time to the accumulation of material and the massing of field observations. I do not mean this as a blanket statement. It refers merely to the class of objects under consideration in
THENEEDOFSTUDY 17
this volume. The students of the Indian languages, have done their part. If we had as careful and detailed work upon the artifacts, as is evinced in the publications of Boas, Hodge, Dixon, Kroeber, Hrdlicka, Pilling, Mooney, Mallery, and many more in other divisions of American anthro- pology, the future consideration of the ornamental-problematical forms would be absolutely unnecessary. We need the same careful examination of stone and analysis of stone objects as the gentlemen I have named and others have given to language and ethnology.
The compilation of the work treating of the use of stone ornaments, and problematical forms among the American Indians in the United States is a difficult task.
The author of this volume has always been interested in the various unknown forms presented in the following pages. The very fact that we know very little concerning them seems to add, rather than detract from the interest that one has in them.
Most readers will agree that Professor William H. Holmes is the dean of American archaeology. Professor Holmes has devoted the best years of a long, arduous and busy life to a study of Indian problems and parti- cularly artifacts. Yet Professor Holmes himself has coined for the greater number of these polished stones the term "Problematical forms". Professor Holmes hesitated to solve the mystery connected with the origin, development and use of this extensive class of stone artifacts. It might seem presumptuous for anyone other than he to undertake this work. However, some one must make a beginning — although such beginning be fraught with uncertainty and beset by difficulties. It is quite probable that years from now, when the entire field of Indian knowledge has been covered, some one will do for the prehistoric American what Francis Parkman did for the Indians of the colonial period. In the meantime, although all of us are groping more or less in the dark, in view of the activities of our museums, institutions, historians and collectors, it seems to me that we have sufficient material available to warrant us in beginning what might be termed a primary discussion of this subject.
There are in the United States and Canada to-day, a large number of public and private museums, educational and historical associations, as well as students of archaeology, who have in their possession large numbers of artifacts illustrating the life of the primitive American. The extent of these exhibitions and the grand total of objects displayed and stored is surprisingly large, and it is only after one has inspected them that the realization of their extent and importance comes home in the fullest sense. It is self-evident that this increasing material, and the ever-extending field of researches should be of real benefit and value to mankind. In brief, these accumulations illustrating primitive culture are a part of our American
FIG. 2. (S. 1-3) Spade and Shield-shaped Gorgets. Materials | Slate. Localities: Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin. Phillips Academy collection.
OVATE FORMS. CONCAVE, STRAIGHT AND CONVEX SIDES Localities: Indiana and Ohio
FIG. 3. (S. 1-1 to 1-2.) Phillips Academy collection. The ordinary flat tablet with concave sides and rounded ends. I have found several of these on the chests and arms of skeletons. The lower specimen presents a peculiarity noted in a number of similar objects in the Peabody Mu- seum, Cambridge. There is a polished groove between the two perforations. There are four or five specimens, all from the same locality in Maine, on exhibition in the Peabody Museum which present this peculiarity. The groove is worn smooth and apparently the polish is the result of the rubbing back and forth of the thongs with which this specimen was fastened. To what it was fastened I am unable to state. The upper specimen exhibits three perforations.
20 STONE ORNAMENTS
educational scheme. Like other divisions of education these should be put to the greatest possible use. This applies not only to the specimens them- selves, but equally so to the great accumulation of scientific data of all kinds, which is continually augmented. The mere compiling of facts and the accumulation of specimens serve no real purpose to mankind. There- fore, I have set myself to this rather imposing task in the belief that the work should be begun. It further seems to me that an attempt at inter- pretation should be made, and that such is infinitely preferable to no interpretation at all.
Readers will find in the bibliography at the end of this book, references to all forms of ornamental-problematical stones. It was thought best to include all the references there, rather thanjnserting them as footnotes to accompany the text.
FIG. 4. (S. 1-1.) Perforated pebbles from near Menard mound, Arkansas County, Arkansas. The simplest form of ornament. Collection of C. B. Moore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
FIG. 4A. (S. 1-1.) An object of jade, which was found on a village-site, on the banks of the Miami River, Miami County, Ohio. It is in the collection of J. A. Rayner
OVATE PENDANTS, PRIMARY FORM
These should precede other figures in the Classification.
GORGETS. LEAF-SHAPED, SHIELD -SHAPED, AND RECTANGULAR
Localities: Ohio, Arizona. Materials: Banded slate, sandstone, black slate, mica schist.
FIG. 5 (S. 1-2.) Pendants and shield forms (top). In the centre is a small pendant perforated for suspension. The three specimens at the bottom of the figure represent the squared pendant and oval pendant. The latter has been grooved for suspension. It was probably a different form originally, judging from the perforations, and was later changed to the pendant form. Phillips Academy collection.
CHAPTER II. HOW THIS VOLUME WAS PREPARED
It may be of some interest to readers to be informed as to the method followed in preparation of this volume.
Even as the average student turns to the encyclopedia when desiring to study a given subject, and ascertains what that work has to say, so one interested in the American Indian first consults the Handbook of the American Indian. In these volumes are found many brief references to the more common ornamental-problematical forms. All the authorities or writers cited were read and the net results of their observations tabulated. Miss Ethel Cohen, familiar with research work in libraries, was assigned the task of preparing the bibliography covering all references to ornamental- problematical forms. This required a great deal of work in the Boston Public Library and the Library of Harvard University, since the Phillips Academy Library did not contain all the books, reports or articles to which it was necessary to refer. The making of a bibliography is tedious and requires much time. The chief task lay in the attempt to systematize and group a class of objects scattered throughout a territory over three thousand kilometers east and west, and two thousand kilometers north and south. This necessitated correspondence with more than two hundred public institutions and upwards of one thousand private individuals. Some three thousand letters were addressed to institutions and private collectors in the United States and Canada. About one thousand persons replied. Of this number approximately half could give some information. About four hundred gave more.or less detailed information. Quite a number sent photographs and drawings, covering hundreds of specimens from restricted areas, or various portions of the country. In each of these letters was included a sheet of two hundred and twenty-one outlines of prob- lematical and ornamental stones. The responses were very satisfactory and represented sections of the United States and Canada in which these types and their variations occur. Many of the replies were in the negative, as was expected from persons living where the ornaments of stone do not occur. Many returned the original sheet of outlines, marking thereon in figures the numbers of each form found in the locality where the collector resided. Thus a great deal of valuable information was collected, and a rough estimate compiled by me from these replies seems to indicate that there were more of these objects in the hands of private collectors than in the public museums.
GORGETS
Rectangular forms expanding or contracting from centre. FIG. 6. (S. 2-5.) Denotes the passing of the oval ornament into the rectangular class and the tablet form. The long one to the left is rather unusual. Sometimes these long ornaments have concave sides, or may be straight pendants of unusual size. Collection of C. L. Baatz, Massillon, Ohio.
24
The large collections owned by the eight or ten leading institutions cannot be studied satisfactorily, for the reason that not all of the objects are on exhibition. Such objects as can be seen in the cases are from all sections of the United States and Canada lying in the "ornament" area. In order to make the study complete, to these exhibits should be added the many local collections in various portions of the United States, scores of which are quite complete, as to types.
Many correspondents sent in outlines of forms not included in the sheet of two hundred and twenty-one outlines. A new sheet of figures was prepared totaling about four hundred and fifty. This sum has since been reduced to four hundred and seven. Many of these are practically the same form, but it was thought best to include them. A few are "freak forms", the originals of which I have never seen. It is just possible that some of them may not be genuine, but they are not numerous, and do not affect the totals or the tables. Enough material was assembled from all sources to give a fairly accurate idea of the geographic distribution of these types among the Indians. At best, however, this work must be considered of pioneer character. Years hence it is quite likely that some archaeologist will arise and will be able to better classify, group and describe these stone ornaments.
In order that so extensive an array of pictures of stones might be studied intelligently, it was necessary to spread out all this data in a large basement. The first arrangement was geographical. The actual specimens sent for study, or on exhibition in the cases of Phillips Academy, number about eighteen hundred. To this total should be added specimens observed by the author, many of which he made outlines of in Salem, Hartford, Cambridge, New York, Albany, Philadelphia, Washington, Burlington and elsewhere. Every specimen in the large collection of the Museum of the American Indian (Heye Foundation) , Smithsonian Institution or American Museum of Natural History could not be studied in detail. Their very numbers preclude this. Yet the author spent some time in looking through the cases and stacks and selected numbers of specimens which the officials kindly permitted to be photographed. Anyone familiar with these types or forms recognizes them at a glance, and in the average collection it is but necessary to glance through the cases and confine one's observations to the unusual, after one has observed the prevailing types in the given area. It would be safe to remark that about fifteen hundred were seen in these collections. The greater number, however, were presented in photographs, drawings and outlines from distant places which the author was unable to visit. These illustrations spread out for study filled a space about 170 meters in length and a meter in width and represented 4522 objects. Adding to this total over 900 carefully studied and reported upon
FIG. 7 (S. 1-1.) Gorget, shield-shaped. F. P. Thompson, Montgomery Co., Ohio. The bands are especially clear. Ma- terial: striped slate.
26 STONE ORNAMENTS
by Professor William C. Mills, 300+ by Arthur C. Parker, Esq., and 1385 in the table made by A. E. Douglas, Esq., and many local collections throughout New England, tracings or drawings of which were secured by an assistant sent out by me, gives a grand total of 11,221 ornamental- problematical forms seen by the author or his friends. On the Susquehanna river in the eight largest collections at Lock Haven, Oneonta, Wilkesbarre, Athens, Waverly, Williamsport, and Columbia there are at least 500 orna- mental stones, most of which were examined in May -August 1916. In this total the objects illustrated in various reports and books are estimated at one thousand. It is not necessary to stop and count them all, but the author feels safe in assuming that in the extensive writings of the following gen- tlemen, Moore, Mills, Beauchamp, Holmes, Brown, Fowke and Boyle, there are more than one thousand specimens shown, to say nothing of the number in papers or works of other authors. The spreading out of all these photographs and illustrations enabled one, almost at a glance, to note, not only the geographical distribution of these forms, but also to observe the change of types from one area to another.
It seems to the author that all these illustrations, photographs or outlines (many of which are exceedingly well made) give the student a better idea of this subject than could have been obtained in any other manner. Omitting Andover's 1592 and the Smithsonian's one thousand (approximate), in no three institutions, or for that matter in no dozen institutions, are there more than three thousand of these objects on exhibition.
In the hall devoted to the archaeology of the United States in the Smithsonian Institution, one sees scattered through the cases something like one thousand of these forms, yet there are many more stored. The same is true of other institutions, all of which is no reflection on any of the museums since it is manifestly impossible for them to exhibit everything. The point is this, — that by assembling all these illustrations one has before him practically the entire range of forms in the United States. Such arrange- ment includes enough forms from the various institutions to give an idea of the character of their extensive collections.
After all this material was assembled and studied, it was again assembled according to form or type. This was a verification of the facts obtained in the geographical study, and the two put together enabled one to correctly draw the maps showing distribution of types.
Although all those who aided in the undertaking have been thanked, the author desires to once more express his appreciation of the extensive assistance rendered by persons in nearly every State in the United States, and the Provinces of Canada. Because each man contributed his part it was possible to cover the entire field. The assembling and study of these several thousand objects naturally resulted in a great deal of duplication,
HOW PREPARED 27
and in spite of considerable effort it has crept into the pages of this volume. It was found impossible to give sizes of all the objects presented. A sufficient number of these, with sizes appended, give an idea of the pre- vailing length, breadth and thickness.
FIG. 8. (S. varying,) Phillips Academy collection. Three ovate pendants drilled at either end. The one to the right is decorated with eight incised lines on the right end, and seven at the left. The specimen to the left is full size, the centre one, a pendant of veined quartz, is two-thirds size, while the smaller one is one-third size. Localities: Ohio and Iowa. Materials: Black slate and granite.
CHAPTER III. THE CLASSIFICATION OF ORNAMENTAL- PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
That we have no proper archaeological nomenclature has often been lamented. There is no more reason why there should not be a proper terminology in archaeology than in geology or mineralogy. Until recently no one attempted it, and writers followed their own fancy in naming these things, with the inevitable result that we have many names which are confusing, others ambiguous and still others that are crude and grotesque.
I showed a sheet of outlines of types described in this volume to Professor Charles H. Forbes, head of the Department of Latin, Phillips Academy. Professor Forbes, after some reflection, furnished me with a list of names derived from the Latin, such as lunate, spatulate, ovate, geniculate, bilunate, bipennate, and so forth. There seems to be no valid reason why some of these names should not be applied to type series of problematical forms, and I intend to use a number of them in this volume. The general use of these terms would simplify our descriptions and render our work more uniform. Each of these terms would take the place of several words which we are compelled to utilize in our descriptions, and which carry no definite meaning. The term ovate was used in the bulletin on gorgets and also in the Baltimore classification; lunate refers to the moon-shaped or crescent forms; bilunate to the double crescents; bipennate covers the double-winged forms; and spatulate the spade-shaped and such objects which were formerly classed under the wretched term "spuds". A somewhat limited class of objects formerly called the "L" shaped or "three-cornered", Professor Forbes placed under the general title of geniculate forms. Whether these will be generally accepted I do not know, but they certainly are an improvement over the multiplicity of indefinite words, terms, and phrases we have been compelled to use in the past.
Twenty -two years ago, in the Archaeologist (May, 1894, page 156), I called attention to the need in this country of an archaeological nomenclature and classification. Whether some one had preceded me, or whether I had made similar suggestions earlier, I am unable to state, but I 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
FIG. 9. (S. 2-3.) Rectangular gorget from Michigan. This was originally a winged-stone and was later made into an ornament. Slate.
I I
FIG. 10. (S. 1-1.) Small circular and other pendants. New York State Museum, Albany. See Chapter XVIII.
FIG. 11. (S. about 1-2.) Five specimens, two of which are ovate, two pointed, and the upper one to the left is spade-shaped. The two lower are spear-shaped. But the upper one was broken and afterwards ground down, so that its present form is no indication that the original form was spade-shaped. Collection of Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Mass. Localities: Ohio, West Virginia and Michigan. Materials: slate and sandstone.
CLASSIFICATION OF FORMS 31
presently he took up the matter with the American Anthropological Asso- ciation, 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.
Herewith follows that portion of the Committee's classification which deals with the forms under study in the following pages.
GROUND STONE I. Problematical forms
1. Laminae (i.e., flat "spuds", "gorgets", and pendants) Types
(A) Spade-shaped
(B) Ovate
(a) Sides concave (not common)
(b) Sides straight
(c) Sides convex
(C) Leaf-shaped
(D) Spear-shaped
(E) Rectangular
(a) Sides concave
(b) Sides straight
(c) Sides convex
(F) Shield-shaped
(G) Pendants
(a) Celt-shaped
(b) Rectangular
(c) Oval or circular
2. Resemblance to known forms
(A) Animal-shaped stones
(B) Boat-shaped stones
(C) Bar-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
(c) Crescents
(d) Cones
32
STONE ORNAMENTS
II. III. IV.
3. Perforated stones with wings
(A) Wings with constant rate of change of width
(a) Wings expanding from perforation
\b) Wings with sides parallel
(c) Wings contracting from perforation
(B) Wings with varying rate of change of width. Tubes and tube-shaped stones
Beads
Pitted stones other than 1 ammer-stones
FIG. 12. (S. 1-1.) Locality: Arkansas.
Ovate gorget, lower edge notched. Museum of the American Indian, N. Y. Material: red sandstone — hard.
FIG. 13. (S. 1-2.) The three to the left represent the first stage in the making of the problematical form. That to the right, the second stage. These are of slate and are from Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. The upper specimen is a block of slate which has been worked into shape by means of a heavy hand-hammer. The first stage is not unlike that observed in the manufacture of flint implements. The central and lower ones represent the second stage in the process of pecking, while the one to the right is still further reduced, and the elevation, strengthening the perforation, is worked into relief. When completed they would all be of the bipennate or winged form. Phillips Academy collection.
— s
2 .2 •* •§ t, g
S o
.c •—
— i.
o o
a -s
O S
3
T3 S
00 S
Egg
SD^ § 0 fS '-S PS^^ rj M1-*
°-r g
< §4
.-si
_£ J3
5tf I
» 4J ^
-^ ^"1
I»I
« s
'-T- £ .ti
t S"3
«^ 8
^-'c
^1
. -rj 4J
2 J"S.
fef a as
CHAPTER IV. MANUFACTURE OF ORNAMENTAL AND PROBLEMATICAL FORMS
This interesting class of unknown objects will be studied first in the unfinished form. Previous to this page, in Figs. 13