THE GORGETS
Since we have examined these gorgets and ornaments from a historical point of view, let us now return to our archæological position and study them through the natural history method.
In 1906 Dr. Charles Peabody and myself published Bulletin II, “The So-Called ‘Gorgets.’” This pamphlet was the outcome of a great deal of study, correspondence, and travel. In that report we published a very technical description of gorgets, but omitted winged objects and the crescents and everything except flat and ridged objects with perforations at the centre or near the ends. None of our objects were perforated through their long diameter. The work on the gorgets is too technical to be reproduced here. We measured all of the gorgets in the Andover and Harvard and other collections, over six hundred, and gave the diameters in millimetres. This total embraces a number of specimens seen at Washington and elsewhere, as at Andover and Cambridge there were four hundred and eight specimens by count. These specimens were examined by means of a triple lens in every possible way. They were measured by the metric system, and the size of each one set down, the diameter of the perforation being given. In “The Stone Age,” I shall adopt the conclusions reached by Dr. Peabody and myself with some additions.
Broken and worked Gorgets
When one studies this class, one learns more than if one confined his observations to the perfect forms alone. I have presented several illustrations of broken gorgets, and it is well to comment upon them and the meaning they unquestionably convey.
Fig. 307 shows a group of these “doctored” gorgets. Each one tells an interesting story.
Fig. 321. (S. 1–1.) A beautiful specimen of unfinished problematical form. Material: dark blue slate. Phillips Academy collection. Secured by A. B. Winans, Battle Creek, Michigan. The ancient workman had not completed his pecking process, but had begun to cut and scrape the surfaces to some extent on either wing. He had left an elevation in the centre to strengthen that part through which the perforation must pass. The flint or sandstone cuttings on the surfaces of the specimen are well brought out in the half-tone.
In the centre, to the left, is a broken winged object—broken whether by accident or design one may not say. But having been broken, it was drilled through the centre by means of a reed drill, near the lateral perforation, and worn as an ornament. There are other specimens in the collection at Phillips Academy that have been broken and made use of as ornaments. It is probable that in not a few instances these specimens have been found by subsequent individuals, long afterwards, and made use of for a purpose entirely foreign to the original maker.
Fig. 322. (S. about 1–2.) This presents a stone in unfinished winged form, showing pecking. Material: close-grained sandstone. From the collection of E. Ralston Goldsborough, Frederick, Maryland.
Fig. 323. (S. about 1–2.) Three winged objects. Andover collection. The upper specimen, to the left, shows that the pecking process has come to an end. An irregular bump, or projection, is left on either side to strengthen, and to allow sufficient diameter for the perforation. The maker had begun to cut a groove, in order to separate the wings. In the specimen to the right, upper row, the wings are almost cut out and the object nearly ready for the polishing stage. Both these specimens exhibit on their surfaces the marks of flint cutting-tools and are scratched and scarred. The lower specimen is a complete “butterfly” winged object and is presented for comparison. The two upper specimens are very important from an archæological point of view. F. M. Hughes of Plympton, Ohio, found the one to the right, and Albert L. Addis, Albion, Indiana, the one to the left.
Fig. 324. (S. 1–3.) Four winged, unfinished, problematical forms from various parts of the country. Material: highly banded slate. Phillips Academy collection. Two of these were collected by Albert L. Addis, of Albion, Indiana. The upper one at the right is interesting in that it has been perforated, as if worn for suspension in the unfinished stage. Such use is frequently noted in these objects and is to me an indication of great age, that they were done by a certain individual, lost, afterwards found by another individual, an unknown length of time intervening, and perforated. This, being of the winged type, seems too heavy to be worn suspended as an ornament, yet the perforation seems to indicate that purpose. The perforation is different from that ordinarily seen in winged objects, being at right angles to the faces instead of parallel to them.
In the lower right-hand corner of Fig. 307 is a perforated steatite object from Ohio. It has been broken and afterwards worn as an ornament. The former perforations show on either end. Steatite being foreign to Ohio may account for the fact that so rude an implement had been again made use of as an ornament. It was originally rather long, possibly over five inches.
Fig. 325. (S. 1–3.) A large double-winged problematical form, roughly broken out, dark gray slate. The unusual size of this object makes it very interesting. It is about two thirds of an inch in thickness. It was found by a farmer near the home of Mr. Addis, Albion, Indiana, to whom the museum of Andover is indebted for a number of fine specimens of the problematical class.
In the Andover collection are many interesting broken gorgets. In some instances the maker has attempted to repair them, but it is also quite evident that in others some one drilled additional perforations in order that the gorgets might be again worn as ornaments. In the lower left-hand corner of Fig. 307 is another broken winged object. Had the native wished it to hang with the heavier part downwards he would have drilled in the small or narrow end rather than along the broad end. Moreover, the drilling is where the break occurred. In one instance, Fig. 302, the specimen is so perforated that it was possible to tie the ends together. This indicates that these things were greatly prized.
Fig. 326. (S. about 3–5.) Large, unfinished, winged object of fine-grained, highly banded slate. This shows the specimen at a stage when the pecking and grinding are completed and the object is partly polished. After further rubbing, the specimen would be perforated through the centre, and the edges further ground down. Collection of J. E. McLain, Bluffton, Indiana.
Because of its unusual high polish and slightly oval surface, one cannot well illustrate a tablet-like gorget which was found by Clarence B. Moore in Washington County, Florida, in 1902. This is a remarkable specimen, and although it is set down as having one surface flat and the other convex, it would be more accurate to say that the flat or upper surface is slightly hollow. The entire specimen is highly polished, so much so that it has a glossy appearance. The specimen is broken. After breaking it has been used, possibly by later Indians, for smoothing the sinews or similar purposes, as there are grooves worn across its larger diameter. These grooves almost obliterate the perforation. It is possible, but not probable, that the specimen was a pipe of the monitor type. There is a raised circular line still traceable, and this was originally one inch in diameter. As this is in the centre of the object at the broken end, where the specimen is one half inch thick, it is possible that this may have been the base of the bowl.
Fig. 327. (S. 1–2.) Unfinished problematical forms. From Georgia and Alabama. Material: quartzite and sandstone. Phillips Academy collection, Andover.
In the centre, to the right in Fig. 307, is half of a winged and perforated or butterfly-shaped stone. Becoming broken, the maker ground it until traces of the centre perforation had disappeared. Then he perforated the stone on either side after the manner of the bird or saddle stone. One should note that the stone is more polished on either side of the perforation.
Another winged perforated “butterfly” stone was broken long ago, and the Indian who found it drilled it at the top and wore it as an ornament. All the edges and perforations carry patina and evince great age. This is a very old specimen, and we may construct theories that the second owner made of it an object entirely different from that intended through the workmanship of the first.
Fig. 328. (S. 1–2.) Four problematical forms and one slate spear-head, from the collection of H. F. Burket, Findlay, Ohio. These specimens were found in Hancock County, Ohio.
Fig. 329. (S. 2–3.) Three specimens from Stephen Van Rensselaer’s collection, Newark, New Jersey. These were found near Orange, New Jersey, and are typical New Jersey specimens. The lower one has been broken and is covered with patina, and appears to be a very old specimen. These two lower ones are dark gray slate.
The Andover collection contains a broken gorget of curious, mottled stone. It was found in the Connecticut Valley. There were two perforations, one on either side of the centre. The one that remains shows unmistakable wearing in the perforation. The specimen is not a work of art, but it is one of the most important in this entire series, if not in the whole museum, because it clearly and positively indicates that two strings were put through the opening, and the wearing is on such side of the perforation as could come from two strings and not from one. The wearing is at the right of the perforation on one side, and at the left of it on the other. Further, the specimen was worn across the body or at least tied across something rather than in a vertical position; the thong or cord slipped and caused the wearing. To the suggestion that the specimen should show wearing on four sides of the perforation rather than on two, it may be remarked that the string while flat and tight against one surface was tied to something on the other side that elevated or brought it out more from the perforation. Possibly this may seem ambiguous, but if one experiments with strings, as has been done, he will observe that it is impossible for one string to cause the wearings indicated. One string drawn back and forth will cause a polish on the edges of the perforation at the same places on either side.
The more one studies these objects the firmer becomes the conviction that the term gorget, as applied to some of them as a class, is misleading or even more than misleading. That most of them are gorgets one may not deny. That a lesser number are not gorgets we are free to affirm; that the bulk of them one cannot positively assign to this purpose or that purpose is quite probable.
The study indicated in the description of these various specimens is based on the collections in the Peabody Museum, the Phillips Academy Museum, and previous studies on the same types in the joint museums of the State University and Historical Society of Columbus, together with extensive reading. As to the examination of the individual specimens, a number show wearing in such a manner as to preclude the idea of suspension as gorgets, as this term is understood. Now the term gorget indicates an ornament of one type or another suspended about the neck or upon the chest. The wearing in such place as has been noted could only have resulted from the tying of these specimens, or the fastening of them with two, three, or even four strings, each stretched to a tension so as to hold the object firmly. The wearing would naturally occur at points very different from those which would be in evidence if the object was simply suspended by means of one string. Again, the form, in instances, precludes the idea of the gorget.
Certain forms, from their positions on skeletons in burial-places or by means of reliable evidence on the part of travelers, one can safely call ornamental gorgets.
I found more of them on prehistoric sites than on Shawano or Delaware sites in the Ohio Valley. From the surface of South Fort at Fort Ancient, Warren County, Ohio, I collected one rectangular gorget with straight sides and two perforations; one oval, with two perforations, one concave—two perforations; one rectangular pendant, straight sides, one perforation.
In graves within the South Fort, I found two pendant-shaped gorgets among decayed human bones. There was one perforation near the end of each gorget.
In the Coiner mound, three miles east of Frankfort, Ohio, a diamond-shaped gorget was found under the head of a skeleton.
Three miles down the Scioto River from Chillicothe, in the Redman mound, were found two gorgets. One with expanded centre, two perforations, with skeleton. One broad, with concave sides, two perforations, and under head of skeleton. Both these were of slate.
With skeleton no. 278, in the Hopewell group (explored, 1891), lay a gorget of cannel coal.
The Storey mound, west of Chillicothe, sheds some light upon the gorget class. On the right wrist of a skeleton was found a fine expanded centre gorget of ribbon slate, with two perforations. On the left wrist, one of the same kind, but not perforated. Also at the left wrist, a concave one with unusually sharp edges.
In the Roberts mound, Perry County, Ohio, was found a gorget injured by fire. It was thick, expanded centre, with two perforations, and lay amid the remains of a cremated skeleton.
At the Corwin mound, one and one half miles north of Waverly, Ohio, a curious thick stratum of a soft, black substance lay upon the base-line. In this were several objects of the “problematical” class. One, of galena, had two perforations, and was almost boat-shaped.
At Beavertown, Ohio, in a mound, the same survey discovered another slate gorget with straight sides and two perforations.
In all these burials with skeletons, the forms found were chiefly the pendant, the expanded centre, the ridged and the octagonal outline and tablets.
Reference has been made to certain ornaments made of broken ceremonials or broken gorgets. It seems that they may mean more than what is implied in the simple statement that a broken ornament was re-made into a serviceable ornament. That the following is probable, it is not claimed, but the assertion is ventured that it is possible. Since on becoming broken they are afterwards made into entirely different objects in shape, is it not possible that in their original form they were made and used by a much earlier tribe? Were they not found upon the surface by later natives, and fashioned by them into such ornaments as are common upon sites occupied in comparatively recent times? If this is not so, why do all the broken stones, when refashioned, take the form of ornaments different from those found generally throughout the country? It may be offered as a suggestion that the original form was a design common to the tribe that made them. Becoming broken they were cast aside. Subsequent individuals or tribes made quite differently shaped gorgets, and accordingly changed the broken gorget of their predecessors to the pattern that best suited them.
Regarding Wisconsin gorgets, Mr. Charles E. Brown writes for “The Stone Age”:—
“Wisconsin has produced a large number of gorgets. A few are from mounds or graves. They range in their distribution from the Wisconsin-Illinois line to as far north as Barren and Langlade counties, and embrace a variety of well known as well as some curious forms. A small number are ornamented with incised markings upon one or both faces. Some bear a succession of small incisions upon their edges at the extremities or sides, or in both places.
“Our gorgets are made of slate, steatite, catlinite, sandstone, limestone, syenite, mica schist, and of other materials. Most specimens have a single perforation near one extremity or at the middle. A smaller number have two perforations, these being placed at the middle, or one near either end. Gorgets with three or more perforations are of rare occurrence. Unperforated specimens and specimens in which the drilling has only been begun are occasionally found. Broken and re-drilled examples occur. The accompanying outlines are of some of the common and of the infrequent forms.
“Referring to Fig. 292, rows A and B are common and widely distributed forms. We have them from every county in the southern half and from a few of the southern counties of northern Wisconsin.
“Row E contains quite common forms. Many with a rude incised ornamentation. Fine specimens have been recovered in Ozaukee, Kenosha, Washington, Walworth, Jefferson, Rock, Dane, Dodge, Green Lake, and Waupaca counties.
“Rectangular and oval gorgets (centre of row E) are also of quite common occurrence. Examples have been recovered in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Rock, Dodge, Sauk, Manitowoc, Winnebago, Juneau, Portage, Waupaca, Outagamie, and other counties.
“Specimens like those in row M have been found in La Fayette, Jefferson, Waukesha, Winnebago, and several other counties.
“A small number of small perforated stone ornaments, known to local collectors as ‘pendants,’ have also been found on Wisconsin camp- or village-sites. These are often circular, oval, or triangular in shape. A few are in the shape of small animals. These are made of catlinite.”