CONTENTS
| I. | Why a Classification based on Archæological Evidence alone is needed | [1] |
| II. | Plans for an Archæological Classification | [10] |
| Classification of prehistoric artifacts, made by the Committee on Nomenclature | [23] | |
| Articles in stone | [23] | |
| Articles in clay | [26] | |
| III. | The Classification | [31] |
| Quarrying materials | [31] | |
| The beginnings of culture | [33] | |
| Quarries | [34] | |
| IV. | Chipped Implements | [48] |
| How manufactured | [48] | |
| V. | Chipped Implements | [80] |
| Types without stems | [80] | |
| VI. | Chipped Implements | [99] |
| Projectile points with stems expanding from base or with sides parallel | [99] | |
| Arrows, bows, and quivers | [103] | |
| VII. | Chipped Implements | [127] |
| Stem contracting from base | [127] | |
| A master at flint-chipping | [135] | |
| VIII. | Unusual Forms in Chipped Objects | [154] |
| IX. | Agricultural Implements | [175] |
| X. | Flint Celts and Axes | [186] |
| XI. | Scrapers | [198] |
| Types with one or more scraping edges, without or with notch (including circular) | [198] | |
| XII. | Chipped Implements | [210] |
| Perforators | [210] | |
| Cached flint objects | [216] | |
| XIII. | Hammer-Stones and Hammers | [222] |
| XIV. | Conclusions as to Chipped Implements | [232] |
| XV. | Ground Stone | [251] |
| Polished stone hatchets or celts—the classification of hatchets, adzes, gouges, and axes | [251] | |
| XVI. | Ground Stone | [273] |
| The adze and the gouge | [273] | |
| XVII. | Ground Stone | [287] |
| Grooved stone axes | [287] | |
| Fluted stone axes | [316] | |
| Conclusions as to celts, adzes, gouges, and axes | [322] | |
| XVIII. | Ground Stone—Problematical Forms | [329] |
| The gorget and ornaments as seen by early explorers | [329] | |
| XIX. | Ground Stone—Problematical Forms | [362] |
| The gorgets | [362] | |
| Broken and worked gorgets | [362] | |
| XX. | Ground Stone | [376] |
| Winged problematical forms | [376] | |
| XXI. | Ground Stone—Problematical Forms | [402] |
| Pick and crescent, the boat-shaped, bar-forms, etc. | [402] | |
| Bars and bar-amulets | [402] | |
| Conclusions as to gorgets, winged objects, etc. | [410] | |
| XXII. | Ground Stone—Problematical Forms | [418] |
| The spud-shaped implement | [418] | |
| Classification | [420] | |
| XXIII. | Ground Stone—Problematical Forms | [431] |
| Plummet-shaped stones: stone rings | [431] | |
| XXIV. | Ground Stone—Problematical Forms | [443] |
| Bicaves, or discoidal stones, tubes, etc. | [443] | |
| Tubular forms | [453] |
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.)