Transcriber's Note:

New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

THE STONE AGE IN

NORTH AMERICA

Colored plate of fine chipped implements. Materials: jasper, carnelian, agate, obsidian, and chalcedony. These were collected in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, and are selected as indicative of aboriginal American art in flint-chipping. B. W. Arnold’s collection, Albany, New York.

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA
AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE IMPLEMENTS, ORNAMENTS, WEAPONS, UTENSILS, ETC., OF THE PREHISTORIC TRIBES OF NORTH AMERICA, WITH MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED FULL-PAGE PLATES AND FOUR HUNDRED FIGURES ILLUSTRATING OVER FOUR THOUSAND DIFFERENT OBJECTS

BY

WARREN K. MOOREHEAD, A.M.

CURATOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY, PHILLIPS ACADEMY, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF INDIAN COMMISSIONERS, ETC.

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. I

BOSTON AND NEW YORK

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

The Riverside Press Cambridge

1910

COPYRIGHT, 1910, BY WARREN K. MOOREHEAD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Published December 1910

PREFACE

Before one enters fully upon a discussion of ancient man’s handiwork, some introductory explanation is necessary. This work is the result of twenty-five years’ study of primitive man’s prehistoric implements, weapons, and utensils found in America. During the past ten years I have presented several attempts at classification of these various objects, two of them being in book form. But my publications were incomplete and unsatisfactory, although in a sense they prepared the way for “The Stone Age.”

A classification of stone, bone, shell, clay, and copper implements in the United States is a difficult and tedious task in itself. There were different cultures, some of which are known, others but slightly known, and it is quite likely that, as time passes, implements will be discovered in such numbers as to justify the establishing of new types. Therefore my work cannot be complete, although I have endeavored to include in it all type-specimens brought to my notice.

The work has necessitated an extensive correspondence with museums, scientific men, and private collectors throughout the United States, much travel, and the reading of thousands of pages of reports, books, and articles.

It is probable that some of the statements will be challenged, and if in any of the conclusions I am in error, I court correction. All these observations are based on the study of actual specimens or photographs of them, on field-work, on published material, and on museum specimens.

After deliberation I concluded to describe the implements, ornaments, and utensils of North America according to class or type rather than by locality. The several scholars who had aided me in this work and to whom I am under the greatest of obligations are therefore given credit in their several places. This was a better plan, and all of my observations are so grouped.

I am especially indebted to Mr. Charles E. Brown, Secretary and Curator of the Wisconsin Archæological Society and at present Dean of the State Historical Museum at Madison, Wisconsin; and to Professor Henry Montgomery, Ph.D., Head Curator of the New Museum of the University of Toronto, Ontario. Both of these gentlemen are co-laborers in the preparation of the pages which follow; both have offered suggestions and been of great assistance; both made thorough studies in their respective regions. Mr. Brown’s papers in the Wisconsin Archeologist and other reports, and his studies in museums in the Northwest, have made him an authority on copper and other forms of ancient objects. Professor Montgomery has carried on investigations, extending through many years, of the archæology of the Dakotas, Utah, and eastern and central Canada.

Readers will observe that I have embodied Mr. Brown’s papers in various portions of “The Stone Age” according to the types under discussion, but Professor Montgomery’s several papers are presented as geographical treatises in Volume II, just before my own Conclusions.

Much credit is due to both of these scholars for their permission to make use of previously published papers, and for hearty coöperation.

I am under obligations to the Wisconsin Archæological Society for the loan of plates illustrating specimens in its collection, and to Mr. George A. West, the authority on Wisconsin pipes, for the loan of figures illustrating pipes from the Northwest; and, further, to Mr. West for his kindness in reading my chapter on pipes and offering suggestions. The Directors of the Milwaukee Public Museum have my thanks for their generous action in making, especially for “The Stone Age,” a series of plates illustrating type-specimens in copper on exhibition in their collection. Dr. S. A. Barrett, Curator of Anthropology in the Milwaukee Public Museum, also rendered me assistance.

Dr. George L. Collie, Curator of the Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin, kindly made for me a number of plates of interesting copper objects, striated axes, and other artifacts in his museum. He also furnished me with descriptions, and permitted me to republish portions of his paper entitled “Aboriginal Discrimination in the Selection of Material for Tools,” printed in volume VII, number 3, of the Wisconsin Archeologist. These and other gentlemen have been very kind to me and I appreciate their coöperation. That “The Stone Age” may be a success is largely due to the interest taken in it by my numerous correspondents.

The student who wishes to consider all the forms in a given region will find it necessary to refer to the Index. Because of my method of treatment, I was compelled to ignore geographical lines. Otherwise endless repetition would result. The only exception to be noted was made in favor of Professor Montgomery’s paper.

I am especially indebted for assistance in the preparation of this work to my colleague, Charles Peabody, Ph.D., Honorary Director of the Department of American Archæology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., and also connected with the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. Having access to the great library of Harvard University, he kindly took in charge the Bibliography covering necessary titles for the information of readers and students. While the result does not embody every reference, yet it is the most extensive list ever presented up to the present time. Messrs. Montgomery, Barr, and Brown also added a number of titles. Dr. Peabody’s interest in “The Stone Age” and his unselfish labors and his many suggestions and advice were potent factors in making the work possible.

I am also under particular obligations to about forty-five persons who have been kind enough to assist in the making of illustrations for “The Stone Age.” It is no more than fair to state that without this coöperation it would have been impossible for us to present so many figures and such excellent photogravure plates, and at the same time offer the two volumes at the price named in the original circulars.

Colonel Bennett H. Young, of Louisville, Kentucky, has made for me about fifty half-tones of type-specimens in bone, shell, clay, and stone which he used in his work “Prehistoric Men of Kentucky,” and also in “Discoveries in Kentucky Caves,” just published. Mr. F. P. Graves, of Doe Run, Missouri, a friend of mine for more than twenty years, made eight photogravure plates of the best specimens in his collection and presented these for use in “The Stone Age.”

Mr. B. W. Arnold, of Albany, New York, sent me by express a portion of his collection, comprising some of the most beautiful projectile points and knives of semi-precious stone that it has ever been my privilege to examine. In order to emphasize the high workmanship and beauty of these points, Mr. Arnold had five colored plates made. Color reproductions and photogravures do justice to the art of stone-age man. I am particularly indebted to both Messrs. Graves and Arnold for their kindness in making possible these fine plates.

Professor William C. Mills, Curator of the Ohio State Archæological Society and State University Museum at Columbus, and Mr. Clarence B. Moore of Philadelphia, loaned me plates illustrating specimens found during their explorations.

Professor William H. Holmes and Dr. F. W. Hodge of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, permitted the free use of contributed articles as well as figures published in the Smithsonian Reports and the American Anthropologist. The generous and hearty coöperation of all these individuals and institutions whose names are herewith appended is no small personal satisfaction to me. In addition to the names presented, there are more than three hundred persons who sent me photographs, drawings, or lengthy descriptions of the types in their several localities.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO “THE STONE AGE”

Addis, Albert L., Albion, Indiana.

Albee, C., Red Rock, Montana.

Arnold, B. W., Albany, N. Y.

Bagg, Harry W., New Berlin, N. Y.

Baird, E. E., Poplar Bluff, Mo.

Barr, James A., Stockton, Cal.

Barrett, S. A., Milwaukee, Wis.

Beauchamp, W., Syracuse, N. Y.

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

Brown, C. E., Madison, Wis.

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

Burkett, H. F., Findlay, Ohio.

Caldwell, F. M., Venice, Ill.

Collie, G. L., Beloit, Wis.

Deisher, H. K., Kutztown, Pa.

Franck, H. W., Sandwich, Ill.

Graves, F. P., Doe Run, Mo.

Hamilton, H. P., Two Rivers, Wis.

Hampton, George, Bridgeton, N. J.

Hills, L. W., Ft. Wayne, Ind.

Hodge, F. W., Washington, D. C.

Holmes, W. H., Washington, D. C.

Holmes, W. A., Chicago, Ill.

Hull, George Y., St. Joseph, Mo.

Logan Museum, Beloit, Wis.

Mills, W. C., Columbus, Ohio.

Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wis.

Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Mo.

Mitchell, S. D., Ripon, Wis.

Montgomery, Professor Henry, Toronto, Can.

Moore, C. B., Philadelphia, Pa.

New York State Museum, Albany, N. Y.

Norland, Luther A., La Jara, Colo.

Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Owen, Dr. C. L., Chicago, Ill.

Peabody, Charles, Cambridge, Mass.

Perkins, G. H., Burlington, Vt.

Records of the Past, Washington, D. C.

Reeder, John T., Houghton, Mich.

Steinbrueck, E. R., Mandan, N. Dakota.

Tooker, Paul S., Westfield, N. J.

Van Rensselaer, Stephen, Newark, N. J.

Webster, R. T., Rochester, N. Y.

West, G. A., Milwaukee, Wis.

Whelpley, H. M., St. Louis, Mo.

Williams, Professor E. H., Jr., Woodstock, Vt.

Wing, E. T. S., Portland, Maine.

Young, Col. B. H., Louisville, Ky.

CONTENTS

THE STONE AGE IN NORTH AMERICA

CHAPTER I
WHY A CLASSIFICATION BASED ON ARCHÆOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ALONE IS NEEDED

In 1907 the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable work entitled “Handbook of American Indians.”[^[1]] This volume was the result of years of labor on the part of about forty-five contributors. Had the “Handbook of American Indians” treated of Stone-Age man as extensively as it has dealt with modern tribes, historical occurrences, and arts and customs, there would be no occasion for “The Stone Age.” Indeed it would be presumptuous for one to offer the public “The Stone Age,” did the “Handbook of American Indians” take up prehistoric cultures in complete detail.

It is no more than right that this word of explanation be presented, in order that my purpose in writing “The Stone Age” may be made clear, as well as that the difference between the two works should be emphasized. There is room for both publications, and I particularly recommend the “Handbook of American Indians” to students and librarians, for it serves an admirable purpose in bringing into reasonable compass everything relating to Indian tribes, languages, arts, and customs. But it must also be known that “The Stone Age” is a very different work from the “Handbook of American Indians.”

Fig. 1. A ledge in which are flint nodules. Johnson’s farm, near Herndon, Tennessee.

In the “Handbook” the writers have concentrated their attention upon the life of the American Indian as seen through the eyes and conceived by the brains of those familiar with Indian history of the past two centuries. Under various citations are axes, arrows, copper objects, and other artifacts treated. But these must be necessarily brief, excellent though they are. And I speak in no hostile criticism whatsoever in stating that the “Handbook of American Indians” could not take up these subjects in detail. While I highly recommend the “Handbook of American Indians,” I am persuaded that the life of the Indian of to-day is influenced by his contact with the white people; that he has drifted far away from Stone-Age times; that while there were examples of real aboriginal culture to be found in America during the past century, yet the great bulk of the natives of this country passed out of the Stone Age with the advent of the French into Canada, the Spaniards into the South, and the Puritans into New England. It seems to me that the study of all these learned individuals, the results of which are set forth in the Indian “Handbook,” has led many of them to consider prehistoric life in America as nearly the same as the life of our Indians for the past one or two centuries. I cannot believe that the arts of the past are the same to any appreciable extent as those which obtained at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and I am convinced that the tribes living at the time of Lewis and Clark practiced arts which are to-day, if not extinct, at least greatly inferior to those of ancient times. Furthermore, I do not believe that the ceremonies practiced by the tribes of to-day are of special value in measuring or understanding prehistoric life.

Fig. 2. A block of flint from a quarry in Indian Territory. (S. 1–2.) Phillips Academy collection. See Figs. 3, 7, 11, etc., for further reduction of this form.
Explanation. S. 1–1 means full size; S. 1–3 means one third size; etc.

All of this does not mean that such studies have no value. On the contrary, they are of the greatest value in ethnology. What I mean is that they are of little value to the archæologist. The archæologist must live in the past, and must deal with stone, shell, bone, and clay objects, the like of which are not in use to-day. He must, through long and painstaking labors both in the field and in the museum, form his deductions. In these he is aided by numerous reports, papers, books, and other published records of explorers, travelers, archæologists, and ethnologists. But he must remember that he is studying the past and not the present—an unwritten past, in fact.

It is well to emphasize the fact that “The Stone Age” is a classification of man’s handiwork. It is not a work relating to cultures, although remarks as to the culture and relation of tribes are suggested frequently by certain types of specimens. And the cultures I describe are ancient cultures, not modern. The linguistic map compiled by Major Powell, and the “Handbook of American Indians” present the habitations of existing tribes and their customs, far better and more comprehensively than could I. The Sioux, the Cherokees, the Iroquois (or any one of a score of tribes), may occupy the same region to-day that other and extinct bands of red men claimed for their own centuries ago, and the artifacts found therein may or may not be comparable with those made and used by the present inhabitants of the section. It is these older things and cultures to which I would confine “The Stone Age.”

In some respects the points of view of the ethnologist and of the student of folk-lore and linguistics on the one hand, and of the archæologist on the other, are quite divergent. And touching upon this variance of opinion there is something to be said.

It has occurred to me that those museum men who collect and study modern material more than the prehistoric have not a clear perspective of the past in this country. As against this statement these gentlemen might properly reply that those of us who study olden times fall into grievous errors because we do not explain ancient cultures through a study of cultures among living tribes.

Fig. 3. (S. 2–3.) Block of flint; partly worked. W. A. Jacobs collection. Similar to Fig. 5.

If any man will read carefully the “Jesuit Relations” and the narrations of our earliest explorers among the Indians, he will see at once that there is a great gulf between the aborigines of long ago and the Indians of the present. The Sun Dance as witnessed by Catlin among the Mandans and the Sun Dance as seen by Dr. George A. Dorsey on the Kiowa Reservation are quite different affairs. The latter showed white man’s influence, the former was more aboriginal. Much of the ancient or prehistoric life we cannot reconstruct, but the day is coming when by minute and unceasing study of these peculiar objects, and by the process of elimination, we shall arrive at certain definite conclusions as to the life of man in the past.

The aboriginal man was influenced by what he saw and heard in the world of nature surrounding him. His religion, folk-lore, daily life, and his entire being, were affected, modified, or directed by the primitive world,—that world of the forest, the plain, the air, and the waters. To study him aright we must cast aside our modern civilization, and if possible—and that is very difficult—place ourselves in his world. The Indian of to-day is not in that world. He hears his grandparents speak of the “buffalo days,” and that conveys some meaning to his mind. But he cannot go beyond the buffalo days; he knows nothing of the more interesting times preceding. He can tell you about the folk-lore of his tribe, yet he has no tradition of the first Spaniards, whether De Soto or Coronado, or others. Notwithstanding that these Spaniards traversed many Indian lands, and bore in their hands unheard-of weapons which made smoke and noise, and killed at a distance; that they were clad in iron suits, and were riding horses,—one hears little or nothing about it. Such scenes must have impressed Indians who had never beheld the like before, and one would imagine that there would be traditions handed down regarding these miraculous strangers, yet one reads in vain for any folk-lore relating to the coming of the Spaniards. This has always appeared to me as one of the arguments against the trustworthiness of folk-lore in matters of evidence as compared with that of archæology.

When one considers the subject in its broad aspect, one must admit that our knowledge of prehistoric times has not advanced in the same ratio as has our knowledge of the Indians of the historic period. The tribes themselves show marked contrasts to-day, and in the past the differences in culture may have been even more striking. It is, therefore, quite likely that an implement used for a certain purpose by one tribe may have been made use of by another tribe for a totally different purpose.

Fig. 4. (S. unknown.) Probable manner of hafting the single-pointed and the two-pointed chisels or picks, used in quarrying flint—in digging the pits. Figs. 4 to 12, and Figs. 36 to 40, are from the 15th Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology.

The tendency to explain much of prehistoric times through knowledge of tribes whose customs are more or less saturated with white man’s influence seems to me to be unfortunate. To make this clear, let me present as an illustration the Sun Dance described by George Catlin, and the Sun Dance described by Dr. Dorsey. More than sixty years intervened between the two ceremonies. Catlin had no training in science, and therefore some things must be overlooked in his favor. Yet the dance he describes is purely aboriginal, or nearly so. Dr. Dorsey, on the other hand, had all the advantages of scientific training covering many years, and was able to take advantage of everything that he saw and heard concerning the ceremony, to compare it with other observances and to draw learned conclusions. Yet the Sun Dance as seen by Dorsey is totally different, and is far less interesting and heroic than the same dance observed by Catlin.

Going back further, we find among the “Jesuit Relations” and narratives of other explorers, descriptions of certain ceremonies which appear to retain their aboriginal character. In other words, they were less European than similar affairs of later dates. Particularly is this true among the Hurons, Iroquois, Ojibwa, etc. The customs seen among the Sioux by Hennepin do not exist to-day.

It seems to me that in our haste to make records of tribes that are passing away, we have published much material that the future ethnologist will consider less important than similar observations of a century ago. No matter how much tribes are affected by contact with civilization, it is well to preserve their records even although the more able scholars of the future will question some of our observations. But while admitting the above, I wish to go on record as against the present tendency, so general, to explain the arts, customs, daily life, etc., of prehistoric man through our knowledge of a degenerate culture among modern Indians.

Much of the material presented in this work cannot be explained through such agencies; for there are hundreds of objects found in graves and tombs, village-sites and cliff-houses, the like of which have been seen in use among Indians by no white man whatsoever.

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

Therefore, it appears to me that a classification based on archæological evidence (as far as possible) is needed, and I have attempted this in “The Stone Age.”

The critical reader will wonder why I have quoted at length from certain ethnologists on such subjects as textiles, bows and arrows, clothing, pottery, and pipes, and omitted extensive quotations in other sections. This is done purposely. In the field of ethnology much work has been done. The “Handbook of American Indians” covers fully such subjects as the bow, arrow, blanket, clothing, etc. Professor Mason was our highest authority on the basket and textiles generally, as is Professor Holmes on ceramic art. No possible improvement could have been made by me on the published studies of these men. And as “The Stone Age” carries out in detail the plan of the “Handbook,” I have embodied their papers in part or in whole, where such papers dealt with titles which I had not made the subject of a special study.

Of problematical forms, the divisions of chipped implements, hematites, agricultural implements, hammers, pestles, mortars, tubes, and other types, there are frequent descriptions. But these are brief, as a rule, and I do not concur in some of the conclusions. Therefore, I have not quoted at any length under such titles. Copper presents an extensive and almost new field, and Mr. Charles E. Brown has, therefore, made it one of the longest sections.

But, while “The Stone Age” does contain many quotations of length, I have made all these a part of one general plan, and this leads up, as readers will observe, to the differentiation of the various culture-groups existing in America in very ancient times. And thus, towards the end of Volume II, one enters an entirely new field. There are opened to archæologists possibilities of future study—very important study, in fact.

CHAPTER II
PLANS FOR AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

There are something like three hundred museums or institutions in the United States that contain archæological collections. These exhibits range from more than a million objects, as in the case of the Smithsonian Institution, or Field Museum of Chicago, or the American Museum of Natural History, to private collections of one to ten thousand specimens each. I have roughly estimated the number of prehistoric artifacts available for study, or those of aboriginal manufacture that show little influence of European culture, at about eight million objects.

Mr. Paul M. Rea, curator of the Charleston (South Carolina) Museum and secretary of the American Museums Association, reports to me by letter that seventy-eight museums have 991,974 specimens by count. This total does not include the larger museums, and forty-seven smaller ones have not reported. Mr. Rea states: “The following museums of importance have either not returned information or have failed to give the extent of their collections in figures: American Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum, Peabody Museum (Cambridge), Peabody Museum (New Haven), University of Toronto, Canada.”

I suppose that these six institutions contain a total of at least four million prehistoric, or early historic Indian objects. Most of these exhibits are of objects in use long before Columbus discovered America, although many are in ethnological collections comprised of things fifty or a hundred years old. How many specimens are in the hands of private collectors of the United States no man may know.

Reference to the Bibliography, presented in the second volume (just before the Index) of this publication, will convince the reader that much of our archæological material has been described by various writers. But there is difference between description and classification. Save Professor W. H. Holmes’s papers upon pottery, Dr. Thomas Wilson’s work on the classification of knives, spear-points, and arrow-heads, Mr. Gerard Fowke’s published papers along the same lines, Mr. Charles E. Brown’s papers upon the so-called “spud,” and copper, Mr. J. D. McGuire’s “Pipes and Smoking Customs,” and Cushing’s contributions (see Bibliography), everything is description and not classification. Or, if classifications are attempted, they relate to certain types, and are brief. The “Handbook of American Indians” describes and illustrates artifacts, but does not classify.

Fig. 6. See Fig. 7 for description.

Sixteen years ago, in the Archæologist (May, 1894, page 156), I called attention to the need in this country of an archæological nomenclature and classification. Whether some one had preceded me, or whether I had made similar suggestions earlier, I am unable to state, but am of the opinion that the matter had been suggested in one of my articles previous to the date mentioned. However, be that as it may, no one paid attention to the suggestion, which was afterwards repeated in two or three articles over my signature. About five years ago, after several attempts at such a classification, I had a long conference with Dr. Charles Peabody, and presently he took up the matter with the American Anthropological Association, and a committee was formed consisting of Professor John H. Wright, Mr. J. D. McGuire, Dr. F. W. Hodge, Dr. C. Peabody, and myself, with Dr. Peabody as chairman. We worked long and assiduously upon this classification. Dr. Peabody and myself grouped and regrouped most of the available specimens in the Andover collection before we were satisfied with the results of our labors. Then we submitted our scheme to the other members of the Committee. After more than a year of labor the Committee presented a preliminary classification which was accepted by the members of the Anthropological Association at the Baltimore meeting, December, 1908. This classification in its complete form will be found on pages [23] to 30.

Fig. 7. (S. about 2–3 to full S.) Series of rejects from the South Mountain rhyolite quarry, showing range of shaped forms. Figs. 5, 6, and 7 are illustrative of successive grades of development.

But before explaining and expanding the accepted classification, it is well to state that we have confined our plan to the arts, industries, and so forth, of man, as expressed in his handiwork. If one realizes this, he will at once understand that we have not included the vocations, or cultures, or divisions of labor, or anything of that sort. Such would be, manifestly, out of place in a classification of the products of man’s handiwork.

Fig. 8. (S. 1–1.) These four figures which follow are from W. H. Holmes’s paper in the 15th Annual Report, pp. 5–150, Bureau of Ethnology. They are selected forms illustrating progressive steps in the shaping of leaf-blade implements from argillite, from village- and shop-sites at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania.

Were one to consider primitive or prehistoric man from every aspect of his life, a totally different classification would be necessary, one far broader and more comprehensive. Again, we have thought of other classifications which suggested themselves to the investigators. None of these could be accepted entirely, for the simple reason that we do not yet know the purpose of every object made and used by prehistoric man. There are, however, two grand divisions to which no one can object—the Known and the Unknown. All objects naturally fall into these. But they are too sweeping in character and have not been adopted, although—regardless of form or material—all Stone-Age implements are of one or the other of these two grand divisions: those whose purpose is clear to us, and those regarding which we have no positive knowledge. Under these heads one might summarize all the implements or paraphernalia made use of by the man, the woman, the priest, the warrior, the child. Or one might subdivide, and under the heading of woman place objects made use of in the carrying industry, domestic science, agriculture, etc. But in following such a classification one is beset by certain difficulties. We are not certain as to the division of labor between man and woman. The lines are not so sharply drawn among barbarians as with ourselves in some matters; in others they are more sharply drawn. The construction of a wigwam, a cabin, a tepee, or a council-house, might be placed under archæological architecture, primitive though it is. Just where to draw the line between the insignia of the priest and highly ornamental possessions of the wealthy warrior presents a problem not easy of solution.

As has been stated on page [12] the life of prehistoric man is such that while one may classify his implements according to type or form and material and supposed use, it is not possible in every instance to affirm positively that this object was made use of by the man and that by the woman, this by the priest and that by the warrior.

Fig. 9. Described under Fig. 8.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 12.
All described under Fig. 8.

Professor Otis T. Mason, of the United States National Museum, gave much thought to ethnological matters, and particularly his studies have been directed toward the arts, industries, and occupations of living tribes. These studies led him to discourse upon the divisions of labor, beginnings of culture, on the carrying industry, agriculture, traps in use among the Indians, and other subjects.

He grouped the various industries in the “Handbook of American Indians,” page 97; and under the citation of implements, tools, utensils, he gave a sketch-classification of the daily pursuits and implements used therein. His paper upon arts and industries I copy in part (omitting references), as it embodies one of several classifications possible of the life of the Indian:—

“The arts and industries of the North American aborigines, including all artificial methods of making things or of doing work, were numerous and diversified, since they were not limited in purpose to the material conditions of life; a technique was developed to gratify the esthetic sense, and art was ancillary to social and ceremonial institutions and was employed in inscribing speech on hide, bark, or stone, in records of tribal lore, and in the service of religion....

“The arts and industries of the Indians were called forth and developed for utilizing the mineral, vegetal, and animal products of nature, and they were modified by the environmental wants and resources of every place. Gravity, buoyancy, and elasticity were employed mechanically, and the production of fire with the drill and by percussion was also practiced. The preservation of fire and its utilization in many ways were also known. Dogs were made beasts of burden and of traction, but neither beast nor wind nor water turned a wheel north of Mexico in pre-Columbian times. The savages were just on the borders of machinery, having the reciprocating two-hand drill, the bow and strap-drills, and the continuous-motion spindle.

“Industrial activities were of five kinds: (1) Going to nature for her bounty, the primary or exploiting arts and industries; (2) working-up materials for use, the secondary or intermediary arts and industries, called also shaping arts or manufactures; (3) transporting or traveling devices; (4) the mechanism of exchange; (5) the using-up or enjoyment of finished products, the ultimate arts and industries, or consumption. The products of one art or industry were often the material or apparatus of another, and many tools could be employed in more than one; for example, the flint arrow-head or blade could be used for both killing and skinning a buffalo. Some arts or industries were practiced by men, some by women, others by both sexes. They had their seasons and their etiquette, their ceremonies and their tabus.

Fig. 13. (S. about 1–3.) Hammer-stones. Phillips Academy collection. These are from Flint Ridge, Ohio, and were made use of in the manufacture of turtlebacks and discs.

“Stone-craft.—This embraces all the operations, tools, and apparatus employed in gathering and quarrying minerals and working them into paints, tools, implements, and utensils, or into ornaments and sculptures, from the rudest to such as exhibit the best expressions in fine art. Another branch is the gathering of stone for building.

“Water industry.—This includes activities and inventions concerned in finding, carrying, storing, and heating water, and in irrigation; also, far more important than any of these, the making of vessels for plying on the water, which was the mother of many arts. The absence of the larger beasts of burden and the accommodating waterways together stimulated the perfecting of various boats to suit particular regions.

“Earth-work.—To this belong gathering, carrying, and using the soil for construction purposes, excavating cellars, building sod- and snow-houses, and digging ditches. The Arctic permanent houses were made of earth and sod, the temporary ones of snow cut in blocks, which were laid in spiral courses to form low domes. The Eskimo were especially ingenious in solving the mechanical problems presented by their environment of ice....

Fig. 14. Free-hand, or direct percussion. First step in shaping an implement from a boulder. Figs. 23, 28, and 29 to 33 are from the American Anthropologist, vol. IV, 1891—W. H. Holmes’s paper.

“Ceramic art.—This industry includes all operations in plastic materials. The Arctic tribes in the extreme North, which lack proper stone, kneaded with their fingers lumps of clay mixed with blood and hair into rude lamps and cooking-vessels, but in the zone of intense cold, besides the ruder forms there was no pottery....

“Metal-craft.—This includes mining, grinding of ores and paint, rubbing, cold-hammering, engraving, embossing, and overlaying with plates. The metals were copper, hematite and meteoric iron, lead in the form of galena, and nugget gold and mica. No smelting was done.

Fig. 15. Flaking-tool—being a shaft or stick, thirty inches to four feet. These were pointed with bone or buck-horn.

Fig. 16. Flaking-tool—lower branch utilized to form a crotch in which blow was struck. Upper opposite branch used to secure a heavy stone to give weight and increase the pressure.
(From George Sellars’s article in the
Smithsonian Report, 1885, pt. 1, reprinted
in Chapter IV.)

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

“Wood-craft.—Here belongs the felling of trees with stone axes and fire. The softest woods, such as pine, cedar, poplar, and cypress, were chosen for canoes, house-frames, totem-poles, and other large objects. The stems of smaller trees were used also for many purposes. Driftwood was wrought into bows by the Eskimo. As there were no saws, trunks were split and hewn into single planks on the North Pacific Coast. Immense communal dwellings of cedar were there erected, the timbers being moved by rude mechanical appliances and set in place with ropes and skids. The carving on house-posts, totem-poles, and household furniture was often admirable. In the Southwest underground stems were carved into objects of use and ceremony.

“Root-craft.—Practiced for food, basketry, textiles, dyes, fish-poisoning, medicine, etc. Serving the purposes of wood, the roots of plants developed a number of special arts and industries.

“Fibre-craft.—Far more important than for textile purposes, the stems, leaves, and inner and outer bark of plants and the tissues of animals having each its special qualities, engendered a whole series of arts. Some of these materials were used for siding and roofing houses; others yielded shredded fibre, yarn, string, and rope; and some were employed in furniture, clothing, food receptacles and utensils. Cotton was extensively cultivated in the Southwest.

“Seed-craft.—The harvesting of berries, acorns, and other nuts, and grain and other seeds, developed primitive methods of gathering, carrying, milling, storing, cooking, and serving, with innumerable observances of days and seasons, and multifarious ceremony and lore.

“Not content with merely taking from the hand of nature, the Indians were primitive agriculturalists. In gathering roots they first unconsciously stirred the soil and stimulated better growth. They planted gourds in favored places, and returned in autumn to harvest the crops. Maize was regularly planted on ground cleared with the help of fire, and was cultivated with sharpened sticks and hoes of bone, shell, and stone. Tobacco was cultivated by many tribes, some of which planted nothing else.

“Animal industries.—Arts and industries depending on the animal kingdom include primarily hunting, fishing, trapping, and domestication. The secondary arts involve cooking and otherwise preparing food; the butchering and skinning of animals, skin-dressing in all its forms; cutting garments, tents, boats, and hundreds of smaller articles, and sewing them with sinew and other thread; working claws, horn, bone, teeth, and shell into things of use, ornaments, and money; and work in feathers, quills, and hair....

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

Fig. 19. Making flakes by means of lever pressure. This shows the manner of utilizing a standing tree. (See Sellars’s article in Chapter IV.)

“The artizans of both sexes were instinct with the esthetic impulse; in one region they were devoted to quillwork, those of the next area to carving wood and slate; the ones living across the mountains produced whole costumes adorned with bead-work; the tribes of the central area erected elaborate earthworks; workers on the Pacific Coast made matchless basketry; those of the Southwest modeled and decorated pottery in an endless variety of shapes and colored designs. The Indians north of Mexico were generally well advanced in the simpler handicrafts, but had nowhere attempted massive stone architecture.”

The Committee on Archæological Nomenclature presented its completed report at the Baltimore meeting of the American Anthropological Association, 1908. This was published in the American Anthropologist, January-March, 1909, page 114. Pottery was classified first, but as I begin with chipped implements I present the classification of pottery last.

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

Fig. 21. First two objects beveled—the one to the left showing strength of cutting-edge. The one to the right shows a different mode of attachment. (See Sellars’s article, Chapter IV.)

CLASSIFICATION OF PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS, MADE BY THE COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE

ARTICLES IN STONE

Chipped Stone

I. Knives and projectile points. Larger—5 cm. (2 inches) or more in length. Smaller—less than 5 cm. (2 inches) in length. Types.

1. Without stem.

(A) Without secondary chipping (flakes). (B) With secondary chipping.

(a) Pointed. (a´) At one end. Base concave. Base straight. Base convex. Sides convex. One side convex, one side straight. (b) Ends convex. (b´) At both ends. (c) More or less circular.

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

(a) Base concave. (b) Base straight. (c) Base convex.

(a) Base concave. (b) Base straight. (c) Base convex.

(a) Base concave. (b) Base straight. (c) Base convex.

1. With one or more scraping edges. 2. Without or with notch (including circular.)

1. Cross-section.

(A) Round. (B) Quadrangular or irregular.

(A) Without stem. (B) With stem.

(a) Stem expanding gradually. (b) Stem expanding suddenly.

1. Spheroidal. 2. Discoidal (a) “Pitted.”

(b) Not “pitted.”

(b) Not grooved.

Ground Stone

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

(A) Spade-shaped. (B) Ovate.

(a) Sides concave (not common). (b) Sides straight. (c) Sides convex.

(a) Sides concave. (b) Sides straight. (c) Sides convex.

(a) Celt-shaped. (b) Rectangular. (c) Oval or circular.

(A) Animal-shaped stones. (B) Boat-shaped stones. (C) Bar-shaped stones.

(a) Longer, resembling true “bars.” (b) Shorter, “ridged” or “expanded gorgets.”

(a) Spheres. (b) Hemispheres. (c) Crescents. (d) Cones.

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

(a) Wings expanding from perforation. (b) Wings with sides parallel. (c) Wings contracting from perforation.

Fig. 22. Indians quarrying and hammering quartzite boulders. From 15th Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology. Designed by Holmes.

Fig. 23. Direct percussion. Manner of striking where the edge is sharp.

ARTICLES IN CLAY

Simple vessels in clay may be presumed to cover all forms except eccentric or conventionalized (i.e., animal-shaped) forms on the one hand, and discs and pipes on the other.

Fig. 24. (S. about 1–3.) A chipped hoe or digging-tool, and four specimens from the ancient quarries near Herndon, Tennessee. Phillips Academy collection. A complete nodule is shown in the lower right-hand corner. The others are broken nodules, showing the concretionary character of the flint.

It is suggested by the Committee that members of the American Anthropological Association having occasion to describe clay vessels, may classify them: first, as to material, as consisting of clay, sand, shell, and their combinations, and as possessing certain general ground-color; second, as to manufacture, as sun-dried or fired, as coiled or modeled—with the variations and steps of each process; third, as to form; fourth, as to decoration, as plain, stamped, incised, or painted. With regard to form, the Committee begs to offer the following definitions and suggestions in classifications.

(Note. In all cases measurements are considered as referring to an upward direction.)

A simple vessel must consist of a body, and may have a rim, neck, foot, handle, or any combination.

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

2. Rim: (A) A part of the vessel forming the termination of the body. (B) A part of the vessel recognizable by a change in the thickness of the material in the terminal sections.

3. Neck. A part of the vessel recognizable by a more or less sudden decrease in the rate of increase or decrease of the diameter.

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

5. Handle: A part of the vessel consisting of some outside attachment, not serving as support.

Body: It is suggested that in comparing the forms or cross-sections of vessels particular attention be paid to the proportion of the diameter to the height, to the rate of change of this proportion, to the place of change of direction in this proportion, and to refer to the following definitions of the two dimensions:

Height: the distance from the base to a horizontal plane passing through the most distant part of the rim.

Diameter: the distance from any one point on the sides to any opposite point on the sides, measured on a plane at right angles to the height.

Base: the point of contact or a plane of contact of the body with a horizontal surface.

Types. Body: These are so varied, depending on relative height and diameter of the cross-section, that an analysis is too cumbersome to be of service to general reference.

Neck: 1. Expanding. 2. Cylindrical. 3. Contracting. 4. Combinations.

Lip: A part of the neck or body recognizable by a suddenly increasing diameter of neck or body, that continues increasing to the rim.

Fig. 25. (S. about 1–2.) Cores and flake knives from the ancient quarries, Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio. Material: light pink, white and brown chalcedony. Phillips Academy collection.

Foot: 1. Continuous.

(A) Expanding. (B) Cylindrical. (C) Contracting. (D) Combinations.

(A) Number. (B) Angle with the horizontal.

(a) Expanding upward. (b) Perpendicular. (c) Contracting upward.

1. Number. 2. Position on the vessel.

(A) Body. (B) Neck. (C) Foot. (D) Combinations.

(A) Continuous with body or neck. (B) Not continuous with body or neck.

(a) With constant direction. (b) With varying direction. (c) With reëntry upon vessel.

Here ends the Committee’s Classification, but there should be added, I feel convinced, articles in bone, shell, copper, hematite, mica, and cannel coal. Copper has been classified by Mr. Charles E. Brown, while I have grouped bone, shell, and hematite.

CHAPTER III
THE CLASSIFICATION

QUARRYING MATERIALS

We have seen that Professor Mason dealt with occupations rather than implements,[^[2]] and did not attempt a classification of artifacts.

The result of the Committee’s investigation was to the effect that we should classify objects as to form and material, not taking into account possible use in our grouping. It was supposed that whoever made use of the classification would present his own interpretation of the meaning of these various forms.

The classification was intended merely as a skeleton on which future classifications were to be built. It must be understood that the expansion of this classification and the changes found necessary and presented here in “The Stone Age” are submitted on my own responsibility. The classifications in axes, celts, copper, bone and shell, mortars and pestles, etc., were made by me because the Committee did not present grouping of these forms; all of which is no reflection on the Committee. It is simply that as no classification of these other things existed, it was necessary to make one.

In describing ancient art there is another method of classification—according to locality. But in any work as large as “The Stone Age,” the adoption of such classification necessitates more or less repetition, and I think it better to describe under a given chapter all the implements of one kind no matter where found in the United States than to treat of geographical distributions. I consider this method less cumbersome and more satisfactory than the separate treatment of all the localities. So far as possible all illustrations are confined to prehistoric objects.

No illustrations—save one or two—of axes in handles, wooden objects or ancient bows are offered. Readers are referred to the museums for such exhibits. To show such, would swell the volumes to unwieldy proportions, and “The Stone Age” already contains more figures than were originally intended.

The textile fabrics, wooden objects, and other things of perishable materials, except where buried in caves in the dry Southwest, have long ago disappeared, and therefore, to make comparisons, one must inspect the older forms among ethnological objects in the collections at New York, Chicago, Denver, Washington, Milwaukee, Cambridge, Toronto, etc., for illustration. There are many hafted implements of various kinds in existence in museums to-day—particularly in the case of specimens collected one hundred years ago—which present trustworthy evidence as to how similar things may have been mounted in prehistoric times. Again, there are hundreds of modern objects collected in the past century among living tribes that to the student of archæology appear to exhibit white man’s influence and are of little or no value in understanding real Stone-Age times. As an illustration of this, I mention the various forms of catlinite pipes, recent examples of which are quite degenerate as compared with the old forms. The same is true of most of the Pueblo pottery, and the war-clubs of Plains tribes.

Fig. 26. (S. 2–3.) Flint knives, made of red and yellow jasper. William C. Mills, Columbus, Ohio.

It seems strange that with the thousands of pages on archæological and ethnological subjects, with which our libraries are filled, no such classification was attempted previously. The time is certainly opportune for such a work and while I am aware that the following pages are more or less incomplete, still I believe that some one should make a beginning, even though the future observers, who will know much more regarding these interesting and mysterious artifacts of the past than do we of the present, may question some of the observations herein set forth.

Fig. 27. (S. 1–2.) Flint cores from which the knives are made. Specimen to the left, red and yellow jasper. Specimen to the right, maroon colored jasper. Flint Ridge material. William C. Mills, Columbus, Ohio. This and some thirty other figures loaned by Mills, appeared in the publications of the Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society, and illustrated his explorations.

I suggest that the critical reader bear in mind that a classification of all the implements of the United States brings out certain facts or tendencies, or may indicate conclusions which escape the observer who is interested in the exploration of a given territory rather than in a study of types, or who is not familiar with the implements of most of the United States.

Therefore, “The Stone Age” is narrowed to a description of the ornaments, utensils, weapons, and artifacts of ancient man in America. Otherwise, one could easily fill ten volumes instead of two, and even then not exhaust the subject.

No description of mounds, earthworks, cliff-houses, pueblos, or village-sites is possible in “The Stone Age.” Readers are referred to the Bibliography, where titles relative to mound, cliff, fortification, and village-site exploration and description will enable them to consult publications relating to these subjects.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CULTURE

Some remarks upon the antiquity of man in America will be presented in the concluding chapter of Volume II.

No one will deny that the present high culture enjoyed by most races and tribes of men is the result or culmination of thousands of years of development. Practically the entire world has advanced beyond the Stone Age, and much of it may be said to have gone even beyond the Iron Age, and into that of electricity. No sane man doubts that at some time or other all the divisions of the human race were in the Stone Age. Whether all the various peoples of many tongues and different colors are derived from the same stock, it is not my purpose to discuss. It is sufficient to state that while certain races of men developed a high culture, others did not. Whether all these peoples had similar advantages or began more or less in the same fashion, is beyond the scope of this work. Suffice it to say that even so far back as in times undoubtedly prehistoric, in every country the archæologist observes differences in culture. This is true of America as of Egypt, or Europe, or Asia. We have heard much with regard to the late date of the Stone Age in our own country. True, stone implements and arts persisted some time after the discovery by Columbus. Yet the recentness of the Stone Age in the United States is easily explained when one considers that America was unknown until 1492. Because stone implements were in use in remote portions of the United States two centuries ago, it does not follow that man on this continent is of no antiquity as compared with his brother in Europe.

In fact man may be, for aught we know, as old in America as in Europe or Asia. There have been hundreds of pages published by Professor Holmes, Dr. Abbott, the Reverend Dr. Wright, Dr. Wilson, Professor Chamberlin, and others as to whether man of the glacial period, or earlier tertiary man, existed in America. The evidence for and against the presence of man twenty or thirty thousand years ago in the United States has been presented in numerous places, and the Bibliography will acquaint readers with what has been said. It is not my purpose to attempt to decide this question—as to the age of man on the American continent.

There are certain cultures that appear older than others, and it is quite likely that they are older. All of these will appear in the forthcoming pages, properly substantiated by such evidence as I am able to present.

Let us, then, drop glacial or tertiary man and consider quarry material and methods of working.

QUARRIES

During the process of manufacture of implements of flint the first forms would scarcely fit into a classification based on complete forms or types; therefore I have decided to begin a description of chipped objects with a chapter on methods of quarrying and manufacture.

The quarries from which we know aboriginal man in the United States obtained material for his knives and projectile points number perhaps twenty. There may be small isolated sites, but the following were the chief sources of material:—

Fig. 28. Indirect percussion, as practiced by the Wintuns and also described by B. B. Redding. In addition to this, Figs. 26, 32, 33, and 34 are from the American Anthropologist, vol. II, 1891—W. H. Holmes’s paper.

Flint Ridge, Licking County, Ohio.

The jasper quarries on the Susquehanna and Delaware.

Those of Indian Territory, Missouri, and Illinois.

Near Coshocton, Ohio.

Near Allentown, Pennsylvania.

The obsidian cliffs of Yellowstone Park.

Piney Branch, in the District of Columbia.

Southwestern New Mexico.

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

Wyoming and California quarries.

(See Bibliography for others.)

Fig. 29. Indirect percussion. Two persons being concerned. Practiced by the Apaches, according to George Catlin.

Flint, chert, chalcedony, jasper, quartz, argillite, and other materials of flint-like character occurred in regular veins, or in nodules or in ordinary boulders or pebbles in the drift. Aboriginal man, therefore, mined in a quarry or he dug in the drift, or he picked up from the surface, or he worked in a limestone stratum to extract the nodular flint. He sought in any one of these places according to his locality and character of the material and its position. At Flint Ridge, the largest flint quarries in the United States, there is a hill or ridge, nearly eight miles in length and varying from a few hundred yards to as much as three miles in width, which is literally filled with depressions varying from small pits to one nearly a hundred feet in diameter and twenty or more feet in depth at the present time. The flint from this quarry is distributed throughout Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, portions of Pennsylvania, and even west of the Mississippi. The amount of work done at Flint Ridge by the aborigines passes comprehension. When one considers their primitive methods of quarrying, it is surprising that they were able to quarry such hard material as flint. Without the use of fire, which they had to apply very carefully, first placing a coating of clay over the flint, they would have been unable to remove any considerable portion of the material.

The Flint Ridge chalcedony is beautifully colored, red, blue, cream color, pink, and pure white. It is easily chipped, and was highly prized by the natives.

I have not space for a long narrative of how the flint was quarried. It is of more importance to tell readers how the implements were manufactured. Mr. Gerard Fowke has made a study of Flint Ridge and published an able paper in the National Museum Reports, 1884–5. He also wrote a chapter for “Primitive Man in Ohio.” His paper was reprinted in Bulletin no. III, Department of Archæology, Phillips Academy, 1906. I quote, as to how the flint was quarried, from his paper:—

Fig. 30. Flaking by pressure, a bone implement being used; (a) the bone tool, (b) the stone, (c) the flake.

Fig. 31. Flaking by pressure, a bone point being used, the implement to be shaped resting on a support.

“Digging away the earth with such tools as he could improvise,—pointed sticks hardened by fire, antler, bone, or stone,—he came to the surface of the flint. This resisted all his efforts until he thought of the effects of heat. Placing wood upon it, he set fire to the pile. When the stone had reached a high temperature he threw cold water on it; this caused it to shatter and crack in all directions. Casting aside the fragments, he repeated the operation, until he had finally burned his way to the limestone beneath. Removing all burned portions of the flint, he next procured a quantity of fine clay and spread a thick coating on the top and sides of the stone, to prevent injury to it. Then building a fire at the bottom of the hole, he soon burned away the limestone and the lower part of the flint stratum, leaving the top projecting. This he broke loose with large boulders of quartz or granite; hammers of this sort, weighing from twenty to one hundred and fifty pounds, have been found in the bottoms of pits that have been cleared out. Knocking loose the clay, which had burned almost as hard as the stone, he found himself in possession of a block of clear, pure flint. By means of the same hammers he broke this into pieces of a convenient size for handling. These were carried to a spot near by, which may be termed a “blocking-out” shop. Here they were further broken by smaller hammers, and brought somewhat into the shape of the implements which were to be made from them. The work was never, or very seldom, carried beyond this stage at the spot where it was begun; the subsequent manipulation was at some other place, best designated as a “finishing-shop.” These are characterized by quantities of small chips, flakes and spalls, broken implements, and unfinished pieces, which were unavailable by reason of some flaw or defect not discernible until the final work was begun. The finishing touches were always made by means of pressure with a bone, antler, or some other tough substance. Many finishing-shops are located near the quarries, others at a distance, some of them several miles away. The principal one was near the cross-road; here a pile of fine chips, covering one fourth of an acre, and fully six feet in depth at the central portion, existed when the country was first settled by the whites, but from various causes it has been reduced until it now is all of one level. This, while the largest, is only one of several hundred such places.”

Similar operations were employed in Indian Territory and elsewhere. In the quarries of Little River, Tennessee, the flint occurred in nodular form in limestone ledges. It was easier for the natives to burn the limestone and remove the nodules than to quarry in the flint layers of Flint Ridge. Fig. 1 shows the nodules outcropping in two layers in the limestone ledge.

Mr. D. N. Kern, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, informs me that there are fully two hundred pits of various sizes where the natives quarried material, within some miles of his home.

Professor Wm. H. Holmes published in the 15th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology a comprehensive paper entitled “Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tide-Water Province.” This paper embodies the observations for a number of years on the archæology of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The description of the quarries along Piney Branch, a small tributary of the Potomac, in the District of Columbia, in this volume is complete, and I wish to recommend to students and readers who wish to obtain a broad understanding of the subject a perusal of Professor Holmes’s paper. The entire genesis of implement making is ably presented.

While other quarries have not been so carefully worked, and certainly not described in detail, the method employed by the prehistoric peoples at the Piney Branch quarry, and in the rhyolite sites further back in the hills on either side of the Potomac, may be taken as typical of aboriginal quarrying in the United States. That is, of quarrying in beds where boulders or nodules are embedded in clay or gravel or till. The boulder or nodule materials and the flint strata occurring in different formations were quarried by different methods. The Piney Branch quarries are an illustration of the separation of material from the general mass and composite of boulder and clay. It was easy to get at the material, but more difficult to fashion the implements, because quartzite, quartz, and argillite were harder to work than flint. At Flint Ridge, while quarrying was extremely difficult, the material once secured could be very easily fashioned. The planes of cleavage of flint, as all know, were very different from those of the boulders found at Piney Branch.

Fig. 32. Flaking by pressure. Manner of holding as observed among many tribes by J. W. Powell and others.

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

One illustration, Fig. 40, reproduced from Professor Holmes’s plate, is self-explanatory. Before the stage represented in Fig. 37 is reached one must imagine the ordinary oval or water-worn pebble of either quartzite or argillite. This pebble was pried by means of levers from its ancient bed. Both Professor Holmes and Mr. F. H. Gushing have constructed life-sized models of Indians at work in the Piney Branch quarries digging, hammering, flaking, in order to produce blades. (See Fig. 22.) At Piney Branch itself the abundance of material made it a mecca for the prehistoric people of the region. Several trenches dug by workmen under the direction of Professor Holmes penetrated this mass of material to a considerable distance. All of these, while varying in minor details, emphasize the general proposition that the quarry was in use for a considerable length of time.