CONCLUSIONS AS TO CELTS, ADZES, GOUGES AND AXES
The distribution of axes in the United States is not equal to that of chipped implements. Axes occur in certain sections of the country where other types of prehistoric objects are wanting, are most numerous where the problematical forms occur frequently, and are more or less individualistic, and one can frequently differentiate the Eastern from the Southern or the Northern from the Western type. There are practically no stone axes in Florida, and few along the seaboard from Florida to Texas. Almost none are found in Texas, and northward from Texas until southern Iowa is reached axes are almost wanting. On the Great Plains of Kansas and Nebraska, where chipped implements are to be found, axes are rare. In the cave region of the Ozarks, which, by the way, is an anomaly in archæology, there are no stone axes, only two having been found in the entire region; whereas, according to percentages elsewhere, there should be several hundred, if not nearly one thousand. On some village-sites in this country numbers of axes have been found; whereas, on other village-sites there are no axes. This is significant, and along with other similar facts of interest should be noted.
In addition to the places already cited where axes are rare, it is strange that a dearth of them exists on the head waters of the Columbia, Missouri, and Colorado. They are very rare on the Pacific Coast, and axes from California, Oregon, and Washington should be considered as strays.
Fig. 284. (S. 2–3.) H. M. Braun’s collection.
Thus our distribution of axes narrows to the whole Mississippi Valley, the Delaware and Susquehanna, the eastern South, New England, eastern and central Canada, and the Cliff-Dweller country. We have already seen where adzes and gouges occur. The chisel-like form of celt is limited to the central Mississippi Valley and the Ohio Valley, with a few in the Hudson, Susquehanna, and St. Lawrence regions.
Many of these types are more or less alike, and yet one may suggest that they represent different tribes if not different cultures.
A statement was made that axes occur most numerously where the problematical forms are to be found. This statement is true and significant.
Again, axes do not occur where there is an abundance of material suitable for the making of axes, such as in the Ozarks, California, and throughout the Rocky Mountains. I have commented elsewhere on the lack of axes in graves and mounds, although they are frequently found in cliff-houses. But this does not necessarily mean that the Cliff-Dwellers place them with their dead. They are found in cliff-houses along with other objects for the simple reason that the Cliff-Dwellers lived in these places.
Fig. 285. (S. 1–2.) B. H. Young’s collection. To the left is an engraved axe. There is a skull worked in relief on one side of the poll. On the reverse, arm and leg bones seem to be indicated. The other specimen is a fine stone tomahawk. Both of granite; locality, the Cumberland Valley.
It would be possible for one to devote an entire volume to axes, their forms, material of which they are made, and uses. It seems to me that when we scrutinize axes with that detail and care observed by botanists, biologists, and other scientists in their studies of various forms in life, that we shall be able to solve some of the mysteries regarding the purposes of the more highly specialized forms. There is a great deal to be learned, as I have previously remarked, by such study.
Fig. 286. (S. 1–3.) At either side are slate tomahawks from Trigg County, Kentucky; one of which was found in a grave at the mouth of Little River. The central object was found in Wayne County, near the Cumberland River. It is remarkable as having three distinct grooves. It is made of slate and was found in a mound. B. H. Young’s collection.
I do not wish to weary readers with these technical remarks, but in real archæology they are of the greatest importance. It is only by tedious comparisons that we shall arrive at a true understanding of stone-age times. We must cast aside the present, and our mental attitude must be in sympathy with stone-age man. The student who hastily passes over exhibits of axes or celts or flint implements as “more or less alike” will never understand real American archæology, any more than the student in Latin would become proficient were he to conclude that two words were derived from the same root because they happen to look somewhat alike in his text-book.
Fig. 287. (S. 2–5.) Ceremonial axe from northeastern Kentucky. Material: hard reddish-brown sandstone. Length, 10 inches. B. H. Young’s collection.
It must be observed that in many axes the groove appears to be the essential and characteristic thing, whereas it is not. A groove may be made by elevating, or bringing into prominence the ridges. Examine the numerous axes illustrated in this chapter, or inspect the axes in some large museum, as evidence of the statement. The groove, in many, will be found to be no deeper than the surface of the axe, yet because the ridges are worked into high relief, it appears to be deeper than it is.
Fig. 288. (S. about 3–5.) This figure is from “Certain Aboriginal Remains, Black Warrior River, etc.,” and was loaned by Mr. Moore. Length, 11.6 inches. Monolithic hatchet from Moundville, Alabama.
Fig. 288 is a beautiful stone tomahawk, both handle and base being of stone cut from a solid piece. This is justly considered one of the rarest stone artifacts in the United States. It is shown about three fifths size. Mr. Clarence B. Moore says of it:—
“Some years ago, a colored man, ploughing near one of the larger mounds at Moundville, found a superb hatchet and handle carved from a solid mass, probably amphibolite, and highly polished. This hatchet was procured by Mr. C. S. Prince, from whom it was obtained by the Academy of Natural Sciences.
“The hatchet, 11.6 inches in length, with a neatly made ring at the end of the handle (not clearly shown in the reproduction), resembles, to a certain extent, the one found by Dr. Joseph Jones, near Nashville, Tennessee, and described and figured by him. C. C. Jones describes and figures this same hatchet, and speaks of the finding of another exactly similar in South Carolina.
“Thruston also describes and illustrates the Jones hatchet, and refers to the South Carolina specimen, and to still another, somewhat ruder in form, as coming from Arkansas.
“It is interesting in this connection to note the presence of ‘celts’ with stone handles in Santo Domingo, though these hatchets are much inferior to the specimen from Moundville.
“The Monolithic hatchet from Moundville seems to be much more beautiful than the one discovered by Doctor Jones, for it leaves nothing to be desired as to finish, and the graceful backward curve of the part of the handle above the blade seems more artistic than the form of the corresponding portion of the Jones hatchet, which is straight.”